THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOI#''  i >' 
LIBRARY 

From  the  Library 
of  the 

Diocese  of  Springfield 
Protestant  Episcopal 
Church 

Presented  1917 

220.9 

T77k 

cop.  2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/kadeshbarneaitsi00trum_0 


THl  HPfliPV 
Of  (hi: 


KADESH-BARNEA 


ITS  IMPORTANCE  AND  PROBABLE  SITE 


WITH 


THE  STORY  OF  A HUNT  FOR  IT 


INCLUDING 


STUDIES  OF  THE  ROUTE  OF  THE  EXODUS 
AND  THE  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY 
OF  THE  HOLY  LAND 


H.  CLAY  TRUMBULL  D.  D. 

Editor  of  “ The  Sunday  School  Times  ” 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 
1884 


COPYRIGHT  BY 


H.  CLAY  TRUMBULL 

1883 


Grant,  Faires  k Rodgers 

Electrotypers  <t  Printers 
PHILADELPHIA 


420,1 

Tl  7 k ■ 


1~ 


TO 

THE  REV.  JOHN  ROWLANDS 

AND  TO 

THE  MEMORY  OF 

PROFESSOR  EDWARD  HENRY  PALMER 

AND 

THE  REV.  F.  W.  HOLLAND 

THE  EARLIEST 
THE  MOST  EMINENT 
AND  THE  MOST  WIDELY  EXPERIENCED 
OF  ENGLISH  EXPLORERS 
IN  THE  SEARCH 
FOR 

KADESH-BARNEA 

THIS  VOLUME  IS  DEDICATED 
BY 

AN  AMERICAN  FOLLOWER  IN  THEIR  TRACK 
AND  ADMIRER  OF  THEIR 
SPIRIT  AND  WORK. 


601514 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Title  Page 1 

Dedication 3 

Table  of  Contents 5 

Introduction 9 


I. 

KADESH-B  ARNEA : 

ITS  MANIFOLD  IMPORTANCE. 

(1.)  In  Story  and  in  Prophecy,  15.  (2.)  From  Sinai  to  Kadesh,  16.  (3.) 
Lights  and  Shadows  at  Kadesh,  17.  (4.)  The  Linkings  of  Kadesh,  24. 


II. 

KADESH-B  ARNEA : 

BIBLICAL  INDICATIONS  OF  ITS  SITE. 

(1.)  The  First  Campaign  of  History,  31.  (2.)  Kedor-la’omer’s  Route,  35. 
(3.)  A Strategic  Halting-place,  42.  (4  ) The  Wilderness  of  the  Wall,  44. 
(5.)  A Typical  Training-Place,  58.  (6.)  Gerar  and  Bered,  61.  (7.)  The 
Mountain  of  the  Amorites,  65.  (8.)  Paran  and  Zin,  67.  (9.)  An  Eleven 
Days’  Course,  71.  (10.)  The  Way  of  Mount  Seir,  74.  (11.)  The  Amorite 
Hill-Country  Road,  80.  (12.)  The  Border  of  Edom,  83.  (13.)  A Sweep  to 
Gaza,  102.  (14.)  The  Promised  Land’s  Southern  Boundary,  106.  (15.) 
Sel’a— Petra— The  Rock,  124.  (16.)  The  Location  of  Mount  Hor,  127.  (17.) 
The  Time  Between  Stations,  139.  (18.)  Kadesh  in  the  List  of  Stations,  147. 

5 


6 


CONTENTS. 


III. 

KADESH-BARNEA: 

ANCIENT  REFERENCES  TO  IT  OUTSIDE  OF  THE  BIBLE  TEXT. 

(1.)  In  the  Egyptian  Recoeds,  159.  (2.)  In  the  Apockypha,  165.  (3.)  In 
the  Rabbinical  W eitings,  167.  (4. ) In  the  E aely  Cheistian  Name  Lists,  178. 


IV. 

KADESH-BARNEA: 

LATER  ATTEMPTS  AT  ITS  IDENTIFYING. 

(1.)  Why  it  Deopped  feom  Notice,  185.  (2.)  A Gleam  dueing  the  Ceu- 
sades,  186.  (3.)  Natueal  Mistakes  of  Medieval  Weitees,  188.  (4.)  Begin- 
nings of  Fullee  Reseaech,  191.  (5.)  Feesh  Hints  and  Suemises  feom 

Deseet  Tkavel,  203.  (6.)  Robinson’s  Peoposed  Identification,  208.  (7.) 
Rowlands’s  Discoveey,  211.  (8.)  The  Confusion  of  Sites,  216.  (9.)  Fail- 
tjees  to  Re-Find  Rowlands’s  Site,  229. 


V. 

KADESH-B  ARNEA : 

STORY  OF  A HUNT  FOR  IT. 

(1.)  Its  Aeab  Gitakdians,  237.  (2.)  A Mid-Desekt  Staeting  Point,  243. 
(3.)  Favoeing  Ciecumstances  at  Nakhl,  247.  (4.)  A Move  Noethwaed,  253. 
(5.)  Yankee  Catechising,  255.  (6.)  A Restless  Night,  259.  (7.)  Help  feom 
a Notable  Deagoman,  260.  (8.)  Off  feom  the  Main  Teack,  263.  (9.)  Des- 
eet Dangees,  265.  (10.)  Teaces  of  Old-Time  Occupancy,  269.  (11.)  Hope 
Defeeeed,  271.  (12.)  The  Lost  Site  Re-found,  272.  (13.)  A Bloodless  En- 
countee,  275.  (14.)  A Place  of  Pilgeimage,  277.  (15.)  Lost  in  the  Deseet, 


CONTENTS. 


7 


278.  (16.)  An  Ancient  Village,  280.  (17.)  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  Discovered, 
282.  (18.)  A Hide  in  the  Darkness,  284.  (19.)  Into  Camp  Again,  286.  (20.) 
A Second  Day’s  Plan,  287.  (21.)  The  Third  Well  Visited,  288.  (22.) 

Another  Landmark  Recognized,  289.  (23.)  An  Arab’s  Short  Cut,  292. 

(24.)  Owdy’s  Use  of  Salt,  293.  (25.)  A Camp  at  El-’Aujeh,  295.  (26.) 

Arab  Mode  of  Balancing  an  Account,  296.  (27.)  An  ’Azazimeh  Pro- 
test, 298. 


VI. 

KADESH-BARNEA: 

THE  SITES  COMPARED. 

(1.)  Suggested  Identifications,  303.  (2.)  The  Two  Representative 

Sites,  304.  (3.)  Claims  for  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  305.  (4.)  Objections  to  ’Ayn 
el-Waybeh,  306.  (5.)  Objections  to  ’Ayn  Qadees,  309.  (6.)  The  Argument 
for  ’Ayn  Qadees,  311.  (7.)  Fair  Conclusions,  320. 


THE  ROUTE  OF  THE  EXODUS. 

A SPECIAL  STUDY. 

(1.)  The  Barrier  to  Israel’s  Passage,  325.  (2.)  Khetam  and  Etham,  327. 
(3.)  The  Three  Roads  Desertward,  337.  (4.)  The  Philistia  Road,  338. 

(5.)  The  Wall  Road,  340.  (6.)  The  Yam  Sooph  Road,  352.  (7.)  The  Many 
Migdols,  364.  (8.)  No  Cities  on  the  Route,  379.  (9.)  Taking  Time  and 

Bakhsheesh,  384.  (10.)  The  Place  of  Rendezvous,  392.  (11.)  The  First 
United  Move,  395.  (12.)  A Sharp  Turn  and  its  Purpose,  396.  (13.)  Theo- 
ries of  the  Route,  402.  (14.)  The  Last  Camp  within  the  Wall,  405.  (15.) 
Unlooked-for  Pursuit,  423.  (16.)  The  Great  Wall  Flanked,  425.  (17.) 
Points  now  made  Clear,  429. 


8 


CONTENTS . 


MAPS  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Map  of  Bible  Lands  (From  Elam  to  Egypt) 
View  of  Castle  Nakhl.  “El-Paran”  . 

Our  Sinaitic  Shaykh:  Shaykh  Moosa  . 

Our  Dragoman  : Muhammad  Ahmad  Hedayah 
’Ayn  el-Waybeh  (two  views)  .... 
Section  through  the  Isthmus  of  Suez. 


In  front. 
Frontispiece. 
Facing  page,  247 
“ 261 
“ “ 308 

“ 341 


Map  of  the  Negeb  and  Surroundings  (Showing  the  Southern 
Boundary  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  field  of  the 
Exodus  and  Wanderings)  . . . . In  pocket  of  second  cover. 


INDEXES. 

FAGE. 

List  of  Authorities  Cited 435 

Index  of  Persons  Named 446 

Index  of  Foreign  Words  Cited 453 

Index  of  Bible  Texts  Cited 458 

Topical  Index 463 


INTRODUCTION. 


At  first  thought,  Kadesh-barnea  may  seem  a small  subject  for 
a large  book ; and  it  may  even  be  deemed  a subject  of  minor 
interest  in  the  realm  of  biblical  and  geographical  research.  But 
Kadesh-barnea  was  a site  of  importance  forty  centuries  ago.  It 
was  more  than  once  the  scene  of  events  on  which,  for  the  time, 
the  history  of  the  world  was  pivoting.  And  for  now  well-nigh 
twenty  centuries  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea  has  been  a matter 
of  doubt  and  discussion  among  Jewish  and  Christian  scholars. 

Going  into  the  desert  of  Arabia  for  the  express  purpose  of 
avoiding  study,  on  an  enforced-vacation  ramble,  I was  enabled, 
most  unexpectedly,  to  re-discover  a long-lost  site  which  had  borne 
an  important  part  in  the  discussions  over  Kadesh-barnea.  This 
laid  upon  me  the  duty  of  giving  to  the  public  the  results  of  my 
personal  observations.  Desiring,  however,  to  present  the  facts  of 
my  discovery  in  the  light  of  kindred  facts  brought  out  by  prede- 
cessors in  this  field  of  research,  I delayed  the  publication  of  my 
story  until  I could  examine  anew  the  more  important  works 
already  treating  on  this  subject.  Giving  a mere  announcement 
of  my  discovery,  in  the  Quarterly  Statement  of  the  (London) 
Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  on  my  return  from  the  East,  in  the 
summer  of  1881,  I set  myself  at  the  study  of  the  facts  involved. 

The  linkings  of  Kadesh-barnea  proved  far  more  numerous  and 

varied  than  I anticipated,  and  the  possibilities  of  gain  from  farther 

9 


10 


INTRODUCTION. 


investigation  in  the  fields  of  ancient  and  modern  scholarship, 
opened  more  widely  at  every  step  of  my  progress.  The  four  hun- 
dred volumes  specifically  cited,  and  the  more  than  two  thousand 
notes  separately  given  from  those  volumes,  indicate  but  a minor 
portion  of  the  many  volumes  searched,  and  of  the  many  note- 
worthy passages  examined,  in  the  course  of  that  prolonged  investi- 
gation. But  the  results  have  fully  justified  the  belief,  that  to  settle 
the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea  would  be  to  settle  many  another 
point  in  dispute ; and  I think  it  will  be  found  that  this  volume 
furnishes  the  material  for  determining  the  Route  of  the  Exodus, 
the  main  outline  of  the  Wanderings,  and  every  landmark  on  the 
line  of  the  Southern  Boundary  of  the  Land  of  Promise. 

The  necessity  of  furnishing  the  proof  of  old  errors  assailed,  and 
of  truths  newly  declared,  has  expanded  this  volume  far  beyond  its 
original  plan,  and  has  multiplied  its  citations  of  works  in  various 
tongues.  Yet  the  main  text  of  the  work  is  so  written  as  to  be 
complete  by  itself,  and  intelligible  to  a reader  who  understands 
only  English.  The  appended  notes  are  largely  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  desire  to  verify,  or  to  test,  my  statements;  although 
many  of  them  are  in  fuller  illustration  of  points  made  in  the  text. 

Having  fresh  evidence,  at  every  stage  of  my  studies,  of  the 
frequent  errors  of  my  predecessors  through  their  failure  to  verify 
quotations,  I have  been  careful  in  every  citation  to  cite  directly 
from  the  authority  quoted ; except  in  the  few  instances  where  I 
have  specifically  mentioned  an  intermediary  agency  through  which 
alone  I was  able  to  refer  to  a work  cited. 

I have  reason  to  acknowledge  gratefully  the  kind  assistance,  at 
one  point  and  another  in  my  researches,  of  the  late  Professor 
Edward  Henry  Palmer,  the  Rev.  John  Rowlands,  Mr.  Walter 
Besant,  and  Mr.  Trelawney  Saunders,  of  England  ; of  the  Rev. 
I)r.  II.  H.  Jessup,  of  Syria,  and  Mr.  Edward  Van  Dyck,  of 
Egypt ; also  of  Professors  Isaac  H.  Hall,  J.  A.  Paine,  C.  H.  Toy, 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  S.  T.  Lowrie,  C.  D.  Hartranft,  and  T.  W. 


INTRODUCTION. 


11 


Coit,  the  Rev.  Dr.  T.  W.  Chambers,  and  of  Drs.  W.  C.  Prime,  and 
J.  Hammond  Trumbull,  and  Mr.  M.  Heilprin,  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic.  Moreover,  I desire  to  recognize  my  special  indebtedness 
to  Mr.  John  T.  Napier,  of  Philadelphia,  without  whose  varied  and 
accurate  scholarship,  and  unvarying  readiness  of  efficient  service  at 
every  point  in  my  researches,  I should  never  have  been  able  to 
bring  this  work  to  completion,  or  to  give  it  the  exceptional  value 
in  its  peculiar  line,  which  I think  it  will  be  found  to  possess. 

The  transliterating  of  Oriental  words  has  naturally  proved  a 
vexed  question ; there  being  no  commonly  recognized  system  to 
which  I could  conform,  and  no  possibility  of  framing  a system 
which  should  fully  meet  every  difficulty  in  the  premises.  My 
endeavor  has  been,  to  employ  such  phonetic  equivalents  as  will 
best  convey  the  sound  of  the  original,  according  to  the  English 
(or  the  American)  uses  of  the  Roman  letters.  My  spelling,  in 
this  line,  differs  at  some  points  from  that  of  any  one  writer  with 
whom  I am  familiar ; yet  it  follows  at  each  point  some  such 
authority  as  Lane,  or  Wilkinson,  or  Robinson,  or  Palmer,  or 
Birch,  or  Meyer,  or  Burton.  Its  peculiarity  is,  that  at  nearly  all 
points  it  is  conformed  to  a common  standard. 

In  my  citations  I have  adopted  the  spelling  of  the  writer  cited ; 
and  so  in  the  case  of  all  biblical  names,  except  the  name  of  “ Kedor- 
la’omer,”  for  which  I have  employed  two  forms.  A thoroughly 
established  proper  name,  like  u Cairo,”  I have  given  in  its  popular 
form.  The  vowels  I have  employed,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  in  their 
ordinary  English  force,  instead  of  in  their  French  or  German  or 
Italian  force.  For  example,  the  designation  of  the  Arabs  of  the 
desert  is  here  given  as  Bed' ween,  rather  than  as  the  Freneh-English 
Bedouin,  or  the  German -English  Bedawin.  The  double  vowel  ee 
has  its  sound  as  in  meet;  and  oo,  as  in  moon.  With  a circumflex 
sign,  d has  a long  and  broad  sound,  somewhat  as  in  bard.  With 
the  same  sign,  6 is  sounded  long,  as  in  gore.  With  a long  quan- 
tity, a is  sounded  long,  as  in  day . The  diphthong  ay,  in  the  body 


12 


INTRODUCTION. 


of  a word,  is  sounded  as  a cross  between  the  ei  in  vein  and  the  ey 
in  eye ; where  (in  the  Arabic)  it  is  modified  by  a preceding  guttural, 
as  in  ’ayn,  its  sound  is  more  nearly  that  of  the  latter,  ey  in  eye. 
The  sign  of  the  aspirate,  as  in  ’ ayn , marks  & peculiar  guttural 
sound  unattainable  by  the  ordinary  American. 

To  distinguish  between  the  Arabic  letters,  qaf  and  leaf,  q is  used 
for  the  former,  and  h for  the  latter.  The  fifth  letter  of  the  Arabic 
alphabet  is  pronounced  by  the  Egyptians  as  hard  g ; while  in 
Palestine  and  the  Sinatic  desert  it  is  pronounced  as  j ; and  that 
distinction  I have  recognized  by  the  use  of  g and  j in  the  same 
word  as  it  appertains  to  the  different  regions:  thus  the  Gebel 
(Mountain)  in  Egypt,  is  the  Jebel  (Mountain)  in  Palestine. 

The  phototype  illustrations  are  from  photographs  taken,  with 
this  work  in  view,  by  Mr.  Edward  L.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia, 
who  subsequently  went  over  a portion  of  the  desert  traversed  by 
me  (as  also  to  Petra,  and  beyond),  under  the  guidance  of  my  old 
dragoman  ; bringing  back  from  his  tour  a choice  collection  of  pho- 
tographic views.  The  maps  are  compiled  from  the  best  available 
sources,  with  such  tentative  changes  as  will  indicate  to  the  reader 
the  geographical  points  made  in  the  text  of  my  work.  Having  no 
new  survey  of  the  region,  I cannot  be  sure  of  its  topography,  be- 
yond the  statements  in  my  verbal  description. 

That  there  are  errors  in  this  volume  I cannot  doubt.  That  it 
throws  fresh  light  upon  the  subject  of  which  it  treats,  I firmly 
believe.  That,  as  a whole,  it  will  prove  a means  of  correcting 
time-honored  mistakes,  and  of  bringing  overlooked  truths  into 
prominence,  I sincerely  hope.  It  is,  moreover,  my  confident 
expectation  that  more  good  will  come  from  the  new  discussion 
which  this  volume  provokes,  than  from  the  immediate  conclusions 
of  its  own  discussion  of  the  main  points  at  issue. 

H.  CLAY  TRUMBULL. 


Philadelphia,  December  1,  1883. 


I 

KADESH-BARNE  A . 


ITS  MANIFOLD  IMPORTANCE. 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


1.  IN  STORY  AND  IN  PROPHECY. 

Kadesh-babnea  has  a manifold  importance  in  the  sacred 
story.  Its  historical,  its  geographical,  and  its  providential  rela- 
tions, as  disclosed  in  the  inspired  record,  are  of  no  ordinary  or 
mean  degree.  A study  of  Kadesh-barnea  in  its  varied  biblical 
associations  involves  a study  of  the  story  of  God’s  peculiar  people, 
from  the  days  of  their  great  progenitor  Abraham  to  the  still 
vague  and  shadowy  days  of  unfulfilled  prophecy  concerning  their 
re-gathering  and  re-establishing. 

This  place  comes  into  view  as  a strategic  stronghold  in  the 
earliest  military  campaign  of  history;  at  the  beginning — in  the 
time  of  the  Father  of  the  Faithful — of  the  yet  progressing  strug- 
gle of  the  world-powers  with  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth. 
It  looms  up  as  the  objective  point  of  the  Israelites  in  their 
movement  from  Sinai  to  the  Promised  Land.  It  is  the  place 
of  their  testing,  of  their  failure,  of  their  judging,  and  of  their 
dispersion.  It  is  their  rallying  centre  for  the  forty  years  of 
their  wandering,  and  the  place  of  their  re-assembling  for  their 
final  move  into  the  land  of  their  longings.  It  is  the  scene  of 
repeated  and  varied  displays  of  God’s  power  and  of  his  people’s 
faithlessness.  And  finally  it  is  the  hinge  and  pivot  of  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  Holy  Land  in  history,  and  of  the  Holy  Land 
in  prophecy. 


15 


16 


KADESH-BARNEA, 


To  ascertain  the  location,  and  to  consider  the  associations  of 
a place  of  such  importance  as  this,  cannot  be  unworthy  of  the 
attention  of  any  careful  student  of  sacred  history,  of  biblical 
geography,  or  of  God’s  providential  dealings  with  his  chosen 
people.  And  to  enter  upon  such  a study  intelligently,  it  is  de- 
sirable to  look  first  at  the  place  as  it  is  shown  in  its  more  promi- 
nent relations  to  the  movements  of  that  people  in  the  days  of 
their  exodus  and  wanderings. 


2.  FROM  SINAI  TO  KADESH. 

In  the  history  of  the  Israelitish  wanderings,  Kadesh-barnea 
stands  over  against  Sinai  in  interest  and  importance.  Even  Sinai 
takes  a minor  place  when  the  element  of  time  is  considered ; for 
the  Israelites  were  at  the  latter  point  less  than  a year,  while 
Kadesh-barnea  seems  to  have  been  their  head-quarters,  or  chief 
rallying-place,  during  a space  of  more  than  thirty-seven  years. 

When  the  unorganized  throng  of  Israelites,  which  had  been 
hurried  out  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt  into  the  lawless  freedom 
of  the  desert,  had  become  a compact  nation,  with  its  divinely 
given  government  and  rulers,  and  its  experiences  of  discipline,  the 
divine  command  was  given  for  the  departure  of  the  mighty  host 
of  that  nation,  from  the  forming-school  of  Sinai,  across  the  desert 
to  the  sacred  rendezvous  of  Kadesh 1 — the  divinely  chosen  camp- 
ing  ground  and  sanctuary,  on  the  borders  of  the  Promised  Land. 
“The  Lord  our  God  spake  unto  us  in  Horeb,”  says  Moses,  “say- 
ing, Ye  have  dwelt  long  enough  in  this  mount:  turn  you,  and 
take  your  journey,  and  go  to  the  mount  of  the  Amorites. . . . And 
when  we  departed  from  Horeb,  we  went  through  all  that  great 

1 The  Hebrew  word,  Kadesh , or  Qadhesh  (tjnj3),  means  Holy,  or  Sacred.  It 
corresponds  with  the  Arabic  Quds,  (jjj or,  with  the  article,  El-Quds, 
which  is  applied  to  Jerusalem.  Concerning  the  use  of  this  term  in  biblical  and 
classical  history,  see  Prideaux’s  Connection,  Part  I.,  Book  1,  p.  87  /. 


LIGHTS  AND  SHADOWS  AT  KADESH. 


17 


and  terrible  wilderness,  which  ye  saw  by  the  Way  of  the  Mountain 
of  the  Amorites,  as  the  Lord  our  God  commanded  us;  and  we 
came  to  Kadesh-barnea.” 1 


3.  LIGHTS  AND  SHADOWS  AT  KADESH. 

Kadesh-barnea  once  reached,  and  history  was  there  made  rapidly, 
by  the  people  who  were  yet  unready  for  their  inheritance. 

From  that  mountain-shielded  covert 2 Moses  sent  forward  spies 
into  Canaan,  to  examine  the  land  in  order  to  learn  its  possessions 
and  its  possibilities.3  On  the  return  of  those  spies  to  Kadesh,4 
their  report  caused  a fright  of  the  Israelites,  which  led  to  a general 
murmuring  and  rebellion.5  It  was  then  that  the  people  turned 
from  their  divinely  appointed  leader,  and  refused  to  accept  the 
divine  plan  for  their  inheritance ; even  choosing  a captain  of  their 
own,  with  a view  to  their  return  to  the  bondage  of  Egypt.6  For 
this  cause,  that  boundary-line  gathering-place  of  the  chosen  people 
on  their  way  to  the  Promised  Land  became  a limit  to  their  progress 
for  a full  generation,  and  a place  of  dispersion  for  a people  under 
the  divine  displeasure.  Kadesh,  the  sanctuary,  now  became,  or 
again  became,  En-mishpat7  (?Ayn8  Mishpat),  a Fountain  of  Judg- 
ment ; and  there  the  guilty  people  were  sentenced  to  complete  a 
period  of  forty  years,  as  wanderers  in  the  desert  they  had  already 
once  passed  successfully. 

1 Deut.  1 : 6,  7,  19.  2 Deut.  1 : 20,  24;  Num.  14:  40. 

3 Num.  13:  1-20;  32:  8;  Deut.  1:  20-24;  Josh.  14:  7. 

4 It  is  thought  by  some,  that  the  spies  were  sent  from  the  wilderness  of  Paran 
(Num.  13 : 3)  before  reaching  Kadesh,  although  one  statement  (Deut.  1 : 19,  22) 
would  show  that  they  were  sent  from  the  latter  place;  and  again  (Num.  13:  26)  the 
two  places  are  spoken  of  interchangeably. 

6 Num.  14:  1-34.  « Num.  14:  4;  Neh.  9:  16,  17. 

7 In  Gen.  14:  7,  it  is  called  En-mishpat  or  Fountain  of  Judgment. 

The  probable  origin  of  this  name  is  treated  farther  on  in  this  volume. 

8 In  modern  Arabic  ’ayn  (literally  “an  eye”)  means  “a  fountain,”  a natural 
spring  of  waters,  as  distinct  from  beer,  " a well  ” that  has  been  dug. 


18 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Unwilling  to  lose  all  they  had  gained  in  reaching  that  threshold 
of  their  coveted  inheritance,  the  rebellious  Israelites  determined  to 
make  at  least  a struggle  for  possession  by  venturing  forward  into 
the  land  wdiich  was  now  forbidden  them.1  Clambering  the  moun- 
tain-pass immediately  above  their  secure  possession,  in  disregard  of 
the  warning  of  Moses,  they  pushed  up  into  the  South  Country — the 
Negeb,2  or  tract  of  high  land  between  the  desert  and  Canaan  proper; 
but  they  were  met  and  discomfited  by  the  Amorites  and  Amalek- 
ites3  of  the  region  they  had  invaded.  All  this  was  within  three 
years  after  the  coming  out  of  Egypt ; probably  within  two  years.4 

1 Num.  14 : 39,  40. 

2 The  Hebrew  word  Neghebh  or  Negeb  (311)  which  is  rendered  in  the 

King  James  Version  “the  south,”  or  the  “south  country,”  or  “southward,”  ( e . g. 
Gen.  12:  9;  24:  62;  Num.  13:  17,)  is  a proper  name — the  Negeb — and  should 
commonly  be  so  rendered,  in  order  to  its  better  understanding.  “ The  tract  below 
Hebron,  which  forms  the  link  between  the  hills  of  Judah  and  the  desert, 
was  known  to  ancient  Hebrews  by  a term  originally  derived  from  its  dryness  (Ne- 
geb). This  was  the  South  Country.”  (Grove,  in  Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Diet .,  s.  v. 
“Palestine.”)  “It  was  aline  of  steppe-land  with  certain  patches  here  and  there 
that  admitted  of  cultivation,  but  in  which  tracts  of  heath  prevailed,  for  the  most 
part  covered  with  grass  and  bushes,  where  only  grazing  could  be  carried  on  with 
any  success.  The  term  which  Eusebius  and  Jerome  employ  for  ‘Negeb’  in  the 
Onomasticon  is  ‘Daromas,’  but  they  carry  it  farther  northward  than  the  Negeb  of 
the  Old  Testament.”  (Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.  at  Josh.  15:  21-32.)  “Asa 
geographical  term  the  name  has  been  entirely  ignored  in  the  English  version ; . . . 
and  the  misapprehension  has  given  rise  to  several  absurd  contradictions  in  terms.” 
(Palmer’s  Dcs.  of  Exod.,  II.,  292.)  “ The  rendering  ‘south’  in  our  Authorized  Ver- 

sion, is  apt  to  confuse  the  general  reader.”  (Edersheim’s  Exod.  and  Wand.,  p.  165.) 
This  point  is  treated  at  length  in  Wilton’s  The  Negeb. 

3 In  Deut.  1:  44  the  Amorites  are  mentioned,  and  in  Num.  14:  45  the  Amalekites. 
As  Kurtz  says  (Ilist.  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  254):  “In  the  passage  in  which  the  historical 
facts  are  narrated  with  greater  precision,  Amalekites  are  spoken  of  along  with  the 
Amorites  or  Canaanites,  whereas  in  Deuteronomy  the  Amorites  ( i . e.  Canaanites), 
who  were  incomparably  more  impoidant,  are  mentioned  alone.” 

4 It  is  not  clear,  from  the  text,  how  long  the  Israelites  were  journeying  from  Sinai 
to  Ivadesh.  The  season  of  the  year  is  plain,  but  not  the  year  itself,  as  various  critics 
have  shown  in  their  attempts  to  prove  it  clear ; e.  g.,  Kurtz  says  (as  above,  III.,  215 
/.),  “On  the  twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  (early  in  May),  in  the  second  year  of 


LIGHTS  AND  SHADOWS  AT  KADESH. 


19 


Then  came  a long  halt  at  Kadesh.  “So  ye  abode  in  Kadesh 
many  days,  according  unto  the  days  that  ye  abode  there.”  1 No 
mention  is  made  in  the  sacred  narrative  of  any  formal  departure 
of  the  Israelites  from  Kadesh,  until  the  time  came  for  a new  move 
toward  Canaan,  at  the  close  of  their  prescribed  wanderings;  and 
then,  it  is  said,  all  the  people,  “ even  the  whole  congregation,”  2 
had  again  come  together  in  Kadesh,  as  if  in  re-assembling  at  the 
recognized  rendezvous  and  rally ing-point  of  the  scattered  nation. 
The  indications  of  the  text  are,  that  when  the  people  found  their 
progress  into  Canaan  barred  for  a generation,  they  gradually  scat- 
tered themselves  in  larger  or  smaller  groups  among  the  wadies3  of 

the  exodus,  the  people  departed  from  Sinai  (Num.  10:  11).  On  their  arrival  at  the 
desert  of  Paran  they  sent  out  spies  to  Palestine  (from  Kadesh -harnea;  Num.  32:  8; 
Deut.  1:  19  /.;  Josh.  14:  7),  at  the  time  of  the  first  grapes  (Num.  13:  21)  that  is, 
August  (or  earlier).  . . . Forty  days  afterwards  the  spies  returned  to  the  camp  at 
Kadesh  (Num.  13:  27).  The  people  murmured  at  the  reports  of  the  spies,  and 
Jehovah  pronounced  the  sentence  upon  them.”  Lowrie,  in  the  Schaff-Lange  Com- 
mentary (at  Num.  14:  1-45),  would  add  at  least  a year  to  this  computation. 
He  says : “We  must  infer  that  the  journey  from  Sinai  to  Kadesh  lasted  at  least  from 
May  of  the  second  year  of  the  exodus  to  July  or  August  of  the  third  year,  i.  e., 
fourteen  to  fifteen  months.  ...  It  may  even  have  lasted  longer.” 

1 Deut.  1 : 46.  The  rabbins  held  that  this  indicates  that  the  Israelites  remained  at 
Kadesh  as  long  as  at  all  the  other  stations  combined ; or,  say,  nineteen  years.  Light- 
foot  takes  the  meaning  to  be, — as  long  as  the  stay  at  Mount  Sinai.  Patrick,  following 
older  authorities,  understands  it, — as  long  after  the  mutiny  as  before ; or,  forty  days. 
Keil,  and  Lange,  and  others,  consider  the  phrase  as  intentionally  indefinite ; the 
facts  being  well  understood  by  the  Israelites  to  whom  Moses  was  speaking.  Fries, 
as  followed  by  others,  would  find  here  an  intimation  of  the  permanent  stay  at 
Kadesh,  until  the  march  Canaanward  was  finally  resumed.  “So  ye  abode  [or, 
waited]  at  Kadesh,  according  unto  the  days  that  ye  abode  [or,  as  long  as  ye  were 
sentenced  to  be  waiting].”  For  light  on  this  point  see  Critici  Sacri,  Pool’s  Synops. 
Crit.y  Barrett’s  Synops.  of  Crit.,  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com., 
all  in  loco;  also  Fries’s  “Ueber  die  Lage  von  Kades,”  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  p.  55. 

2 Num.  20:  1;  Deut.  2:  1. 

3 A “wady”  is  any  depression  of  the  desert  surface,  or  any  space  between  the  hills, 
which  becomes  the  bed  of  a water-course  in  the  rainy  season.  From  its  extra  water 
supply  a wady  is  more  fertile  and  arable  than  the  higher  ground  about  it.  It  is 
commonly  marked  with  some  signs  of  vegetation  throughout  the  year. 


20 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


the  desert,  living  a nomad  life, — seeking  sustenance  by  sowing  and 
reaping  with  the  divinely  added  supply  of  daily  manna, — having, 
all  this  time,  Kadesh  as  the  northernmost  limit  of  their  roving, 
and  as,  in  a peculiar  sense,  the  centre  of  their  occupancy,  or  the 
pivot  of  their  wanderings.  Meantime,  the  tabernacle,  with  its 
ministry,  would  seem  to  have  moved,  under  the  divine  guidance, 
from  place  to  place  within  the  limits  of  the  wanderings,  as  if  on 
circuit,  in  order  that  Moses  and  Aaron  might  retain  a spiritual 
oversight  of  the  scattered  people. 

Certain  it  is,  that  the  popular  opinion,  of  a formal  marching  to 
and  fro  in  the  desert  for  the  forty  years  of  wandering,  finds  no 
more  countenance  in  the  text  than  it  does  in  reason — in  view  of 
the  purposes  of  God  with  his  people,  and  of  the  habits  of  Oriental 
nomads.1  In  this  light  of  the  narrative,  the  stations  named  in  the 
sacred  text,  for  the  period  of  the  wanderings,2  may  be  taken  either 
as  the  stations  of  the  tabernacle  on  its  circuit ; or  as  the  excep- 
tionally prominent  encampments  of  the  people  as  a whole,  at  the 
earlier  or  at  the  later  portion  of  that  period.3 

Hardly  a glimpse  is  given  us  of  the  covenant  people,  in  all 
those  years  between  their  first  and  second  formal  gatherings  at 
Kadesh ; nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  this  inspired  silence  is  with- 
out a substantial  reason.  Students  of  the  covenant  record,  and 
historians  of  the  covenant  people,  have  recognized  a pregnant 
meaning  in  the  very  shadows  which  obscure  the  life-story  of 
Israel  from  Kadesh  to  Kadesh.  “So  far  as  the  sacred  records 

1 Yet  Colenso  ( The  Pentateuch , etc.,  I.,  124)  insists  that  the  popular  opinion  is  the 
biblical  view,  as  precedent  to  his  claim  that  the  biblical  view  is  an  unreasonable  one. 

2 Num.  33:  18-36. 

3 This  reasonable  view  of  the  settlement,  or  the  prolonged  stay,  of  the  Israelites  at 
Kadesh,  and  of  the  nomadic  character  of  the  forty  years’  life  in  the  wilderness,  is 
held  by  many  careful  and  judicious  students  of  the  Bible  text;  however  those  stu- 
dents may  differ  in  an  understanding  of  the  list  of  stations  given  in  Numbers  33.  For 
example,  see:  Ilasius,  in  Reg.  David,  et  Sal.,  pp.  211-214;  Ewald,  in  Hist,  of  Israel, 
II.,  193  ff.;  Bitter,  in  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  428/.;  Kurtz,  in  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  262- 


LIGHTS  AND  SHADOWS  AT  KADESH. 


21 


were  concerned,”  says  Kurtz,1  “ there  was  no  history  between  the 
first  and  second  encampments  at  Kadesh.  But  whatever  happened 
while  the  first  encampment  lasted,  and  whatever  occurred  after  the 
second  encampment  had  taken  place,  was  regarded  as  forming 
part  of  the  history  to  be  recorded.  . . . Nothing  of  a stationary  (or 
retrograde)  character  was  regarded  as  forming  part  of  the  history 
to  be  recorded;  but  only  that  which  was  progressive.  . . . During 
the  thirty-seven  years,  about  which  the  scriptural  records  are 
silent,  the  history  of  Israel  did  not  advance  a single  step  towards 
its  immediate  object,  the  conquest  of  the  Promised  Land.  . . . The 
thirty-seven  years  were  not  only  stationary  in  their  character, — 
years  of  detention  and  therefore  without  a history, — but  they  were 
also  years  of  dispersion.  The  congregation  had  lost  its  unity,  had 
ceased  to  be  one  compact  body ; its  organization  was  broken  up, 
and  its  members  were  isolated  the  one  from  the  other.  ...  It  was 
only  Israel  as  a whole,  the  combination  of  all  the  component  parts, 
the  whole  congregation,  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  pillar 
of  cloud  in  the  midst,  which  came  within  the  scope  of  the  sacred 
records.”  2 

“ Not  only  are  the  names  of  the  encampments  [during  the  wan- 

2§8;  Winer,  in  Bibl.  Realwdrterb.,  Art.  “Wiiste,  Arabische;”  Tuch,  in  “Bemarks 
on  Gen.  XIV.,”  in  Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1848,  p.  91;  Fries,  in  “Ueber  die  Lage 
von  Kades,”  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  p.  55;  Lange  (and  more  fully  Lowrie, 
his  translator),  in  Schaff-Lange  Com.  “Numbers”;  Espin,  in  Speaker’s  Com.,  at 
Num.  20:  1;  Hayman,  in  Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  “Wilderness  of  the  Wan- 
dering;” Palmer,  in  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  515-519;  Edersheim,  in  Exod.  and  Wand., 
pp.  171-174;  Smith,  in  Student’s  Old  Test.  Hist.,  pp.  187, 189;  Payne  Smith,  in  Bible 
Educator,  I.,  228  ff. ; Geikie,  in  Hours  with  Bible,  II.,  347.  And  the  rationalistic 
Wellhausen  agrees  with  his  more  evangelical  fellow-critics  on  this  point,  as  shown 
in  his  article  on  “Israel”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  edition. 

1 Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  270/. 

2 “The  subject  divides  itself  into  two  parts;  the  emancipation  and  the  preparation 
for  conquest.  Both  of  these,  Moses  treats  at  large.  The  space  of  years  which  he 
passes  over  in  silence,  is,  if  I may  so  speak,  the  interlude  between  the  two  acts  of  the 
great  drama.”  (Palfrey’s  Led.  on  Jewish  Script  and  Antiq  , I.,  373) 


22 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


derings]  still  lost  in  uncertainty ,”  says  Stanley,1  “ but  the  narrative 
itself  draws  the  mind  of  the  reader  in  different  directions ; and  the 
variations,  in  some  instances  as  it  would  seem,  of  the  sacred  text 
itself,  repel  detailed  inquiry  still  more  positively.  To  this  out- 
ward confusion  corresponds  the  inward  and  spiritual  aspect  of  the 
history.  It  is  the  period  of  reaction,  and  contradiction,  and 
failure.  It  is  chosen  by  Saint  Paul2  as  the  likeness  of  the  corres- 
ponding failures  of  the  first  efforts  of  the  primitive  Christian 
church;  the  one  ‘type’  of  the  Jewish  history  expressly  mentioned 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.” 

In  this  view  of  the  pivotal  and  typical  character  of  the  Israel- 
ites’ halt  at  Kadesh3  a peculiar  interest  attaches  to  every  gleam  of 
light  on  the  place  itself,  and  on  the  incidents  having  their  centre 
there.  It  is  possible  that  the  rebellion  of  Korah  and  his  company4 
occurred  at  Kadesh;5  and  that  thus  the  attempt  to  wrest  the  priestly 
power  from  Aaron  was  made  at  the  same  place  as  the  effort  to  take 
the  civil  government  from  the  hands  of  his  brother.6  If  this  was 


lHist.  of  Jewish  Ch.,  I.,  199/. 

2“1  Cor.  10:  11.  ‘These  things  happened  unto  them  for  examples’ — ‘types’  in 
the  original.  This  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  word ; and  it  is  the  only  case  in  which 
it  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  Jewish  history.” 

3 In  the  parting  blessing,  or  dying  song  of  Moses,  wherein  the  story  of  the  The* 
ophany  is  rehearsed  to  Israel,  the  Septuagint  gives  “myriads  of  Kadesh,”  where  our 
text  gives  “ten  thousands  of  saints”  (Deut.  33:  2);  thus  showing  Sinai,  Paran,  Seir, 
and  Kadesh,  as  uplifted  into  pre-eminence,  as  boundary  limits  of  the  place  of  God’s 
chief  wonder-working  for  his  people,  during  their  years  of  training.  On  this  point, 
see  Critici  Sacri,  Pool’s  Synops.  Crit.,  Barrett’s  Synops.  of  Crit .,  and  Schaff -Lange 
Com.,  all  in  loco;  Ewald’s  Hist,  of  Israel , vol.  II.,  p.  198,  note ; Stanley’s  Sinai  and 
Pal.,  p.  96. 

4 Num.  16. 

5 So  claim  Kurtz  (Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  257);  Lange  (Schaff- Lange  Com. 
“ Exod.  and  Lev.”  “Introduction”  p.  25;  and  “Num.  and  Deut.”  p.  85);  and 
others.  Forster  (Israel  in  Wild.,  pp.  290-303)  shows  reason  for  believing  that  Korali’s 
rebellion  occurred  not  earlier  than  say  twenty  years  after  the  exodus ; but  the  ques- 
tion of  its  date  is  apart  from  the  question  of  its  place. 

3 Num.  14:  4;  Neh.  9:  16,  17. 


LIGHTS  AND  SHADOWS  AT  KADESH. 


23 


so,  Kadesli  became  yet  again  the  “ Fountain  of  Judgment  ” against 
the  insurgents,  when  there  “the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and 
swallowed  them  up;”  and  a consuming  fire  came  from  the  Lord  ; 
and  a pestilence  was  among  the  people,  destroying  “ fourteen  thou- 
sand and  seven  hundred,  besides  them  that  died  about  the  matter  of 
Korah.”  And  it  was  then  and  there,  also,  that  the  rod  of  Aaron 
budded1  in  confirmation  of  his  priestly  authority  from  Jehovah. 

It  was  certainly  at  Kadesh  that  Miriam  died  and  was  buried  ;2 
that  the  people  murmured  for  water ; and  that  Moses  struck  the 
Rock, — when  he  had  been  told  only  to  speak  to  it, — and  the  Lord 
caused  it  to  give  forth  again  its  waters  in  abundance.3  And 
Kadesh,  on  this  latter  occasion,  became  (perhaps  for  the  third  time) 
the  “Fountain  of  Judgment,”  the  place  of  the  uttering  of  a sen- 
tence of  God’s  condemnation,  by  the  Lord’s  passing  judgment  on 
Moses  for  his  presumption,  his  impatience,  and  his  lack  of  rever- 
ent obedience ; sentencing  him,  as  also  Aaron,  to  die  outside  of  the 
Land  of  Promise.4  Then  it  was,  also,  that  Kadesh,  the  Holy, 
became  Meribah,  or  Strife.5 

It  was  from  Kadesh-barnea  that  Moses  sent  messengers  to  the 
king  of  Edom,  asking  if  the  Israelites  might  pass  through  his 
country  on  their  way  to  Canaan  ;6  and  from  the  same  point,  also, 
a like  request  was  made  of  the  king  of  Moab.7  Nor  does  Kadesh 
lose  its  pre-eminence  in  the  story  of  the  wanderings  until  the  final 
move  is  made  toward  Canaan  by  the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea,  around 
the  mountains  of  Edom  and  Moab.8  It  is,  in  fact,  a central  point 
in  both  the  geography  and  the  history  of  the  wanderings.  Stanley9 
says,  in  reviewing  the  movements  of  the  Israelites : “ Two  stages 
alone  of  the  journey  are  distinctly  visible  [after  Israel  has  received 

1 Num.  17.  2 Num.  20:  1.  3 Num.  20:  2-11. 

4 Num.  20 : 12,  24.  This  point  is  more  fully  treated  farther  on.  See  Index,  under 

“ Kadesh,  names  of.” 

5 Num.  20  : 13.  « Num.  20 : 14-21.  ' Judges  11 : 16,  17. 

8 Num.  20  : 22;  21 : 4-20.  9 Hist,  of  Jewish  Ch.,  I,  199. 


24 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


its  divine  charter  as  a nation] ; from  Sinai  to  Kadesh,  and  from 
Kadesh  to  Moab.77 

4.  THE  LINKINGS  OF  KADESH. 

Not  only  does  the  name  “ Kadesh  77  (“  Holy 77)  seem  to  have 
been  gained  by  the  abiding  there  of  the  tabernacle;  but  the  cog- 
nomen “ Barnea  77  is  thought  by  many  to  have  been  given,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  sentence  of  dispersion  there  passed  upon  the  Is- 
raelites. Simon1 2  would  derive  this  word  from  bar  “ desert/7  and 
nea  “ wandering ; 77  rendering  it,  “Desert  of  the  Wandering.772 
Fiirst3  and  others  give  a similar  origin,  but  would  take  bar  in  its 
later4  signification  of  “son.77  Jerome5 6  held  this  latter  view,  and 
rendered  “ Barnea 7’  “ Son  of  Change,77  6 corresponding  to  the  idea 
of  “ Bed'wy.77  Others,  again,  think  that  “ Barnea 77  was  an 
earlier  name  for  the  locality ; 7 or,  that  it  was  the  name  of  a 

1 In  the  Onomast.  s.  v.  “ Barnea.”  “ Barnea,  the  Desert  of  the  Wandering ; that  is 
of  the  Israelites  (from  13  bar,  Chaldaic,  Syriac,  and  Arabic,  ‘ desert,’  and  l")  nea, 

‘ wandering.’)” 

2 Edersheim  ( Exod . and  Wand.  p.  172)  approves  this  rendering,  and  gives  as  its 
equivalent,  “the  Land  of  Moving  to  and  fro,”  or,  “the  Land  of  being  Shaken.” 

3 In  his  Bible  Concordance  (in  appended  “ Onomastieon,”  pp.  1272,  1290):  “Bar- 
nea, Son  of  Wandering : Bed'wee.”  “ Kadesh-barnea,  Holy  City  of  the  Nomads.” 
Again,  (in  his  Heb.  u.  Chald.  Worterb.,)  Fiirst  thinks  that  Barnea  may  correspond 
with  the  Arabic  XJ ^ (marne’ah),  “ a green  or  blooming  meadow.”  He  claims  that 
on  sound  linguistic  principles  “ Barnea  ” may  come  from  the  root  “ ba-ran ,”  “ to  be 
green,”  or  “blooming.”  This  would  accord  with  the  prominence  of  the  site  of 
Kadesh  as  an  oasis  in  the  desert. 

4 Hackett  {Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Diet.,  s.  v.  “ Kadesh,”  note)  points  out  that  “ 13,  bar 
does  not  occur  as  ‘ son,’  in  the  writings  of  Moses.”  Hackett  adds  that  “ The  reading 
of  the  LXX.  in  Num.  34 : 4,  K ddrjg  rov  B apvij,  seems  to  favor  the  notion  that  it  was 
regarded  by  them  as  a man’s  name.”  In  both  these  suggestions,  Hackett  is  followed 
by  the  Speaker’s  Com.  in  a note  on  Numbers  32 : 8. 

3 De  Nominibus  Hebraicis;  “ On  Deuteronomy.” 

6 “ Filius  mutationis.” 

7 See  Iveil  and  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Com.  at  Num.  20:  14-21 ; Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov., 
III.,  221. 


THE  LINKINGS  OF  KADESH. 


25 


prominent  place  in  the  neighborhood  of  Kadesh.1  Whatever 
may  have  been  its  signification,2  that  name  became  subordinate  to 
the  name  which  memorialized  the  abiding  there  of  God’s  people 
with  the  sacred  tabernacle. 

The  exceptional  importance  of  Kadesh-barnea,  in  its  relation  to 
the  Israelitish  wanderings,  and  to  the  Israelitish  possessions  and 
history,  has  long  been  recognized  by  students  of  the  Bible  story 
and  of  the  lands  of  the  Bible. 

Ewald,3  thorough  and  discriminating  in  his  study  of  the  main 
features  of  the  Hebrew  story,  despite  the  fancifulness  of  many  of 
his  theories,  says  emphatically  : “ Kadesh  is  a place  which  emerges 
from  the  darkness  of  those  times  as  especially  important,  and 
where  evidently  the  community  of  Israel  had  their  central  station 
during  a very  long  period.”  The  cautious  and  conservative  Bit- 
ter4 is  even  more  explicit  in  making  Kadesh  the  centre  of  a new 
national  life  to  the  Israelites.  “ Here  began  a new  capital,  so  to 
speak,”  he  says ; “ the  long  sojourn  at  this  spot,  and  their  constant 
conflicts  with  their  warlike  neighbors  were  the  means  of  thor- 
oughly training  in  warlike  discipline  the  new  generation  which  wTas 
born  in  the  wilderness,  and  which  had  before  it  the  task  of  enter- 
ing the  Promised  Land.”  Wellhausen,5  the  cold-blooded  German 
critic,  who  looks  only  at  the  bald  historic  facts,  as  he  sees  them 
in  the  ancient  story,  goes  a great  deal  farther  than  Ewald  and 

1 Ewald,  in  Hist,  of  Israel,  II.,  293. 

2Hillerus  (in  the  Onomast.  Sac.,  Tubingen,  1526,  s.  v.  “Barnea”)  explains  it  as 
from  150,  beer-nea,  meaning  “Fountain  of  the  Exile ; ” that  is,  of  Ishmael. 
Leusden  (in  the  Onomast  Sac.,  Leyden,  1656  ; s.  v.  “Kadesh-barnea”)  explains  it  as 
“ holiness  of  the  unstable  son ; ” or  “ holiness  of  grain,”  or  “of  commoved — or  unsta- 
ble— purity.”  Thomas  Wilson,  in  his  Christian  Diet.  (London,  1678)  and  Calmet,  in 
his  Dictionary  (Paris,  1720)  adopted  the  same  explanation  as  Leusden.  Bunting  (in 
the  Itin.  Sac.  Script.,  Magdeburg,  1591)  says  “ Kadesh  means  holy : a pure  moving.” 
There  certainly  is  no  lack,  here,  of  suggested  renderings  from  which  to  make  a choice. 

3 Hist,  of  Israel,  II.,  193.  4 Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  428  f. 

6 In  Art.  “ Israel,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  edition. 


26 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Ritter  (and  Moses),  in  his  estimate  of  the  exceptional  importance  of 
Kadesh  in  the  Israelitish  history.1  He  not  only  believes  that  the 
Israelites  remained  there  for  many  years,  “ having  at  the  well  of 
Kadesh  their  sanctuary  and  judgment  seat  only,  while  with  their 
flocks  they  ranged  over  an  extensive  tract ; ” but,  in  his  opinion, 
Kadesh  was  the  “ locality  they  had  more  immediately  had  in  view 
in  setting  out”  from  Goshen.  It  was  there,  as  he  sees  it,  that 
Moses  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  and 
prepared  the  way  for  “ the  nomads  of  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh” 
to  become  the  occupants  and  transformers  of  Canaan.  “ If  we 
eliminate  from  the  historical  narrative  the  long  Sinaitic  section, 
which  has  but  a loose  connection  with  it,”  he  says,  “ the  wilder- 
ness of  Kadesh  becomes  the  locality  of  the  preceding  and  subse- 
quent events.  It  was  during  the  sojourn  of  many  years  here  that 
the  organization  of  the  nation,  in  any  historical  sense,  took  place.” 
Such  a view  as  this  of  the  inspired  record  has  its  chief  value  in 
showing  how  prominent  a place  is  Kadesh  in  the  Israelitish  story, 
if  the  plain  indications  of  the  sacred  text  be  considered  with  can- 
dor and  thoroughness. 

Thomson,2  who  is  exceptionally  familiar  with  the  main  corres- 
pondences of  the  Land  and  the  Book,  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of 
Kadesh  as  “ one  of  the  most  interesting  sites  in  the  entire  history 
of  the  Hebrew  wanderings.”  Stanley,8  who  can  certainly  see  the 
salient  points  in  a great  historical  picture,  however  he  may  give  his 
own  coloring  to  the  minor  details  of  that  picture  in  its  reproduction, 
declares : “ There  can  be  no  question  that  next  to  Sinai,  the  most 
important  resting  place  of  the  children  of  Israel  is  Kadesh.”  And 
in  this  declaration,  Stanley  but  re-plirased  the  opinion  of  the  de- 
vout and  observing  Durbin:4  “With  the  exception  of  Horeb,  no 
place  between  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  and  the  passage  of  the 

1 In  Art.  “Israel,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  edition. 

2 South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book,  new  ed.),  p.  200. 

s Sinai  and  Pal.,  p.  93.  4 Observ.  in  East,  I.,  199. 


THE  LINKINGS  OF  KADESH. 


27 


Jordan  concentrates  so  much  interest  as  Kadesh.”  Milman,1  the 
pioneer  of  modern  English  historians  of  the  Jewish  race  from  its 
beginnings,  declared,  as  a result  of  his  study  of  the  wanderings, 
and  of  the  entrance  into  Canaan  : “ The  key  to  the  whole  geogra- 
phy is  the  site  of  Kadesh.”  And  this  opinion  of  Milman  has  been 
reiterated  and  restated  by  many  a student  who  has  followed  him. 
Lowrie,2  the  competent  and  careful  American  translator  of  Lange’s 
Numbers,  says,  similarly  : “ Kadesh  is  the  key  to  all  the  geographi- 
cal problems  of  the  wanderings  after  the  departure  from  Sinai.” 
Palmer,  the  distinguished  explorer  of  the  desert  of  the  exodus,  and 
of  the  country  above  it,  was  of  the  same  opinion,  when  he  affirmed,3 
of  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh  : “ This  is  perhaps  the  most  important 
site  in  the  whole  region,  as  it  forms  the  key  to  the  movements 
of  the  children  of  Israel  during  their  forty  years  wanderings.” 
Graetz,4  the  latest  eminent  Jewish  historian  of  his  own  people, 
quotes  this  saying  of  Palmer  as  fully  a just  one.  And 
William  Smith,5  whose  extensive  historical  studies  have  involved 
a close  acquaintance  with  the  geographical  questions  of  the  Israel- 
itish  wanderings  and  possessions,  concludes : “ To  determine  the 
position  of  Kadesh  itself,  is  the  great  problem  of  the  whole  route.” 

In  short,  an  agreement  on  the  site  of  Kadesh  is  an  essential  pre- 
liminary to  any  fair  understanding  of  the  route  and  the  movements 
of  the  Israelites,  between  Sinai  and  the  Jordan.  Yet  this  “ essen- 
tial preliminary  ” has  thus  far  been  unattainable  by  Bible  students 
generally.  When  the  English  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  began 
its  good  work,  in  1866,  one  of  the  widely  known  geographers6  of 
Great  Britain,  in  expressing  his  hope  of  the  good  results  of  that 
undertaking,  spoke  of  Kadesh,  as  “ one  of  the  most  hotly  contested 
sites  in  biblical  investigation,  and  the  settlement  of  which  is  much 

1 Hist,  of  Jews.,  Yol.  I.,  Book  IV.,  p.  242,  note. 

2 Schaff- Lange  Com.,  " Num.  and  Deut,”  p.  80. 

3  Des.  of  Fxod.,  II.,  349  /.  4 Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.,  395. 

6 Student's  Old  Test.  Hist.,  p.  186.  6Trelawney  Saunders. 


28 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


to  be  desired.” 1 Fifteen  years  later,  the  chief  representative 2 of 
the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  in  the  immediate  field  of  its  re- 
searches, could  say  no  more,  after  all  those  added  years  of  investi- 
gation, than  that  “ the  recovery  of  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  is 
[still]  the  most  interesting  question  of  the  topography  of  the  Sina- 
itic  Desert ; and  any  indication  leading  to  a clearer  understanding 
of  the  question  will  be  of  some  value.” 3 

Nor  is  it  alone  as  a key  to  the  geography  of  the  wanderings,  that 
the  site  of  Kadesh  has  an  importance  in  the  field  of  biblical  re- 
search. Kadesh  is  the  one  place  spoken  of  as  “a  city”  in  all  the 
Israelitish  encampments.  For  centuries  before  this  it  had  been  a 
landmark  by  which  routes  of  travel  were  noted,  and  by  which 
the  location  of  other  places  had  their  bearing ; and  for  centuries 
afterward  it  was  referred  to  as  one  of  the  chief  boundary  marks  of 
the  Land  of  Promise.4  To  settle  its  whereabouts  is  to  aid  in  set- 
tling the  boundary  stretch  of  Edom,5  or  Seir;6  the  locality  of  the 
wilderness  of  Paran  ; 7 of  the  wilderness  of  Zin  ; 8 of  the  Negeb  or 
South  Country;9  and  to  fix  more  definitely  one  of  the  homes  of 
Abraham;10  the  dwelling-place  of  rejected  Hagar;11  the  sites  of 
mounts  Hor12  and  Halak;13  the  site  of  Tamar;14  and  the  route  of 
Kedor-la’omer,  in  the  first  really  great  military  campaign  of  his- 
tory.15 

It  would,  indeed,  be  strange  if  the  Bible  text  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  explorations  into  the  lands  of  the  Bible  on  the  other,  gave 
no  sure  indications  of  a site  so  important  as  is  Kadesh-barnea,  in 
both  its  biblical  and  its  geographical  aspects  and  relations. 

1 From  “ Quarterly  Statement,”  No.  IV.,  as  reprinted  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal., 
u Special  Papers,”  p.  71/. 

2Capt.  C.  E.  Conder.  3 “Quart.  Statement,”  January,  1881,  p.  60/. 

♦Compare  Num.  34:  4;  Josh.  15:3;  Ezek.  47 : 19;  48:  28. 

3 Num.  20 : 16.  6 Gen.  36 : 8 ; Deut.  1 : 2,  44.  7 Num.  13 : 26. 

3 Num.  20 : 1 ; 27  : 14 ; 33 : 36.  9 Num.  34 : 3-5 ; Josh.  15 : 1-4. 

io  Gen.  20:  1.  11  Gen.  16:  14.  12  Num.  20:  21,  22;  33:  37. 

13  Josh.  11 : 16,  17  ; 12 : 7.  14  Ezek.  47 : 19 ; 48 : 28.  « Gen.  14 : 1-7. 


I 

II. 

KADESH-BABKEA. 


BIBLICAL  INDICATIONS  OF  ITS  SITE. 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


1.  THE  FIRST  CAMPAIGN  OF  HISTORY. 

And  now  what  are  the  indications  in  the  Bible  text  of  the  site 
of  Kadesh?  What  help  to  its  locating  is  given  in  the  earlier  and 
later  references  to  it  in  the  sacred  narrative? 

The  first  mention  of  Kadesh  is  in  the  record  of  the  devastating 
march  of  “ Chedorlaomer,  king  of  Elam,”  in  the  days  of  the 
patriarch  Abraham.1  Elam2  was  a country  north  of  the  Persian 
Gulf  and  east  of  the  Tigris.3  It  was  later  known  as  Susiana,  with 
Shushan4  as  its  capital.  From  the  Assyrian  monuments  it  has 
been  learned,  that,  not  long  before  the  days  of  Abraham,  an 
Elamite  king  had  conquered  Babylon  f and  the  Bible  record  here 


iGen.  14:  1-16. 

2 See  Niebuhr’s  Gesch.  Assur’s  u.  Babel’s,  pp.  382-409 ; Loftus’s  Chald.  and  Stis., 
chaps.  26  and  28;  Encyc.  Brit .,  ninth  edition,  Art.  ‘‘Elam,”  by  Sayce;  Rawlinson’s 
Origin  of  Nations , pp.  229-231 ; his  Five  Great  Mon.,  II.,  435 ; Lenormant  and 
Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  I.,  59,  82,  343,  352;  Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham, 
pp.  166-203;  Winer’s  Bibl.  Realworterb.,  Art.  “Elam;”  Schdff-Lange  Com . and 
Speaker’s  Com.,  at  Gen.  14:  5.  See,  also,  Isa.  11:  11;  21:  2;  Jer.  25:  25;  49:  34-39; 
Ezek.  32:  24;  Acts  2:  9. 

5 “ Elam  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  Persia  and  Parthia ; on  the  west  by  Assyria 
and  Babylonia;  and  on  the  south  by  the  Persian  Gulf.”  (Hamburger’s Real-Encyc., 
8. y.  “Elam,”) 

* Neh.  1:1;  Esther  1 : 2,  etc. ; Dan.  8 : 2. 

6 “Asshur-bani-pal,  the  last  of  the  Assyrian  conquerors,  mentions  in  two  inscrip- 
tions that  he  took  Susa  1635  years  after  Kedor-nakhunta,  king  of  Elam,  had  con- 

31 


32 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


shows  that  the  Elamite  king  Chedorlaomer1  (or  Kedor-la’omer,  or 
Kudur-Lagamar)  had  sway  not  only  oyer  the  whole  Tigro- 
Euphrates  basin,  but  westward  over  Syria  and  Canaan,  even  to 
the  borders  of  Egypt. 

This  outreachmg  of  the  Eastern  king  was  on  a scale  before 
unknown  in  the  history  of  the  world.2  The  Bible  story  says 

quered  Babylonia.  He  found  in  that  city  the  statues  of  the  gods  taken  from  Erech 
by  Kedor-nakhunta,  and  replaced  them  in  their  original  position.  It  was  in  the 
year  660  B.  C.  that  Asshur-bani-pal  took  Susa.  The  date,  therefore,  of  the  conquest 
of  Babylon  by  Kedor-nakhunta,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Elamite  dynasty  in 
Chaldea,  must  have  been  2295  B.  C.”  (Lenormant  and  Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist,  of 
East , I.,  352.)  Authorities  differ  slightly  as  to  this  precise  date.  See  also,  on  this 
point,  George  Smith’s  translation  of  “The  Annals  of  Assurbanipal,”  in  Rec.  of  Past, 
I.,  88,  and  of  the  “Early  History  of  Babylonia,”  in  Rec.  of  Past,  III.,  4;  and  Tom- 
kins’s Times  of  Abraham,  p.  175/. 

1 “Though  the  name  of  Chedor-laomer  has  not  been  found  [in  the  course  of  the 
Chaldean  researches],  Laomer  or  Lagamar  appears  as  an  Elamite  god,  and  several 
of  the  Elamite  kings  bore  names  compounded  with  Kudur  ‘a  servant,’  as  Kudur- 
Nankhunte,  ‘the  servant  of  the  god  Nankhunte,’  Kudur-Mabug,' ‘the  servant  of 
Mabug,’  and  the  like.”  (George  Smith’s  Chald.  Acc.  of  Genesis , p.  272  /.) 

Sir  Henry  Bawlinson  suggested  tire  identification  of  Kudur-Mabuk,  lord  of  Elam, 
mentioned  on  the  Babylonian  monuments,  with  the  Kedor-la’omer  of  Genesis. 
Afterwards  he  was  inclined  to  abandon  this  idea.  But  it  has  been  taken  up  by  the 
Rev.  Henry  George  Tomkins,  and  pressed  with  a strong  show  of  probabilities  in  its 
favor.  The  latter  quotes  George  Smith  (apparently  from  a private  letter)  as  saying: 
“From  his  Elamite  origin  and  Syrian  conquests,  I have  always  conjectured  Kudur- 
Mabuk  to  be  the  same  as  the  Chedor-la’omer  of  Genesis  XIV.”  Smith  had, 
however,  shown  that  Rawlinson’s  finding  of  the  title  “Apda  Martu”  (Conqueror,  or 
Ravager,  of  the  West)  on  the  bricks  of  Kudur-Mabuk,  was  a misreading  of  Adda 
(lord)  for  Apda  (conqueror).  Compare  Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham,  pp.  175-181; 
Rawlinson’s  Five  Great  Mon.,  I.,  161-163,  176-178;  George  Smith’s  translation  of 
the  “Early  History  of  Babylonia,”  in  Rec.  of  Past,  III.,  19.  See,  also,  Bunsen’s 
Chron.  of  Bible,  p.  11  /. ; Rawlinson’s  Origin  of  Nations,  pp.  37-40;  Sayce’s  Art. 
“ Elam,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  edition. 

“ Kedar-el-Ahraar,  or  ‘ Kedar  the  Red,’  is,  in  fact,  a famous  hero  in  Arabian  tradi- 
tion, and  his  history  bears  no  inconsiderable  resemblance  to  the  Scripture  narrative  of 
Chedor-laomer.”  (Sir  II.  Rawlinson,  in  Rawlinson’s  Herodotus,  Vol.  I.,  Essay  VI., 
§ 5,  note  1.)  See  also,  on  this,  Lenormant  and  Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  II.,  146. 

2 “He  [Kedor-la’omer]  is  the  forerunner  and  prototype  of  all  those  great  Oriental 


THE  FIRST  CAMPAIGN  OF  HISTOR  Y. 


33 


nothing  of  the  events  which  led  toward  it,  but  mentions  the  fact 
of  it  incidentally,  in  giving  the  record  of  an  attempt  by  the 
Canaanites  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  vassalage,  and  of  the  part 
performed  by  Abraham  in  aiding  his  kinsman  Lot 1 against  the 
power  of  the  oppressor,  when  the  latter  came  westward  to  re-forge 
the  chains  of  bondage.2 

An  immediate  gain  of  Kedor-la’omer’s  then  unparalleled  scheme 
of  conquest  was  the  control  of  the  one  great  highway  of  travel  and 

conquerors  who  from  time  to  time  have  built  up  vast  empires  in  Asia  out  of  hetero- 
geneous materials,  which  have  in  a larger  or  a shorter  space  successively  crumbled 
to  decay.  At  a time  when  the  kings  of  Egypt  had  never  ventured  beyond  their 
borders,  unless  it  were  for  a foray  in  Ethiopia,  and  when  in  Asia  no  monarch  had 
held  dominion  over  more  than  a few  petty  tribes,  and  a few  hundred  miles  of  terri- 
tory, he  conceived  the  magnificent  notion  of  binding  into  one  the  manifold  nations 
inhabiting  the  vast  tract  which  lies  between  the  Zagros  mountain-range  and  the 
Mediterranean.  Lord  by  inheritance  (as  we  may  presume)  of  Elam  and  Chaldea  or 
Babylonia,  he  was  not  content  with  these  ample  tracts,  but,  coveting  more,  proceeded 
boldly  on  a career  of  conquest  up  the  Euphrates  valley,  and  through  Syria,  into 
Palestine.  Successful  here,  he  governed,  for  twelve  years,  dominions  extending  near 
a thousand  miles  from  east  to  west,  and  from  north  to  south  probably  not  much  short 
of  five  hundred.”  (Rawlinson’s  Five  Great  Mon.,  I.,  177.) 

1 Gen.  14:  12-16.  “It  is  indeed  true  that  affection  for  Lot  may  have  been  the 
motive,  and  his  deliverance  from  captivity  the  object,  of  Abram's  expedition.  But 
both  this  and  his  victory  had  a higher  meaning  when  viewed  objectively  and  in 
their  bearing  upon  history.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  narrative  to  exalt  Abram, 
but  to  show  the  wonderful  leadings  of  God  towards  his  elect,  by  which  everything  is 
brought  into  immediate  relation  to  the  divine  plan.”  (Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  I., 
217.) 

2 “ The  imperial  power  of  Asia  had  already  extended  as  far  as  Canaan,  and  had 
subdued  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  no  doubt  with  the  intention  of  holding  the  Jordan 
valley  as  the  high-road  to  Egypt.  We  have  here  a prelude  of  the  future  assault  of 
the  worldly  power  upon  the  kingdom  of  God  established  in  Canaan ; and  the  impor- 
tance of  this  event  to  sacred  history  consists  in  the  fact,  that  the  kings  of  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan  submitted  to  the  worldly  power,  whilst  Abram,  on  the  contrary,  with 
his  home-born  servants,  smote  the  conquerors  and  rescued  their  booty — a prophetic 
sign  that  in  the  conflict  with  the  power  of  the  world  the  seed  of  Abram  would  not 
only  not  be  subdued,  but  would  be  able  to  rescue  from  destruction  those  who 
appealed  to  it  for  aid.”  (Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.  at  Gen.  14 : 1-12.) 

3 


34 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


commerce  between  the  East  and  the  West.1  In  the  very  nature  of 
things,  from  the  formation  of  the  earth’s  surface,  that  little  belt  of 
land  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Jordan,  hedged  in  by 
mountain  and  desert  and  sea,  was,  and  must  continue  to  be,  the 
one  passable  isthmus  between  Asia  and  Africa  and  Europe.  From 
the  earliest  dispersion  of  the  families  of  men,  the  Land  of  Canaan 
has  been  in  a sense  a geographical  centre  of  the  world’s  interest ; 
and  rival  forces  have  never  ceased  to  contend  for  the  possession  of 
the  great  thoroughfare  which  the  immediate  region  of  that  land 
practically  controls.  The  building  of  the  Suez  Canal,  in  our  own 
day,  is  but  an  effort  to  secure  in  another  way  what  Kedor-la’omer 
sought  by  the  subjugation  of  the  peoples  and  tribes  on  either  side 
of  the  Jordan.2 

And  the  keeping  open  of  that  highway — continuing  its  control 
by  his  subjects  and  tributaries — was  vital  to  the  supremacy  of  the 
great  Eastern  conqueror.3  When,  therefore,  after  twelve  years, 

1 The  reference  in  Joshua  7:  21  to  the  “goodly  Babylonish  garment” — “a  choice 
robe  of  Shinar  ” — among  the  spoils  of  Jericho,  is  an  indication  of  the  traffic  in  that 
day  between  Shinar  and  Canaan. 

2 “ The  true  reason  [of  Kedor-la’omer’s  campaign]  cannot  be  doubtful,  when  we 
remember  of  what  importance  that  extensive  valley  [of  the  Jordan]  was  at  all  times, 
in  regard  to  the  intercourse  of  tribes  with  one  another.  It  always  formed  (comp. 
Strabo  XVI.  4,  18/.)  the  road  marked  out  by  nature  itself,  which,  from  the  Atlantic 
gulf,  divides  the  boundless  wilderness  watered  by  the  Nile  and  Euphrates;  the 
medium  of  intercourse  between  Arabia  and  Damascus.  ...  To  have  dominion  over 
the  whole  of  this  important  locality  must  have  appeared  of  the  greatest  conse- 
quence. . . . By  this  occupation  Arabia  in  particular,  with  its  choice  productions 
(comp.  Ezek.  27:  19  ff.),  was  completely  enclosed;  and  all  commerce  with  the 
southern  coast,  and  the  bazaars  in  Western  and  Eastern  Asia,  came  into  the  hands  of 
one  and  the  same  power ; which  was  a sufficient  reason  for  procuring  these  advantages 
by  conquest,  and  for  maintaining  them  against  revolt,  by  the  putting  forth  of  force.” 
(Tuch’s  “Remarks  on  Gen.  XIV.,”  in  Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1848,  p. 82.) 

3 “ In  fact  they  [of  the  Pentapolis]  commanded  the  great  route  of  Arabian  com- 
merce, and  enriched  themselves  with  the  wealth  which  the  Egyptians,  the  Phoeni- 
cians, the  Babylonians  and  Elamites  valued  so  highly.  Doubtless  many  a rich 
caravan  of  ‘Midianite  merchantmen,’  with  ‘spicery  and  balm  and  myrrh’  [Gen. 


KEDOR-LA' OMER'S  ROUTE. 


35 


there  was  a general  revolt  against  Kedor-la?omer’s  authority  by 
the  dwellers  in  the  five  Cities  of  the  Plain,  it  became  necessary  for 
him  to  make  a personal  campaign  for  their  re-subjugation  and 
punishment.  It  is  in  this  campaign  that  Kadesh  first  appears  in 
history. 


2.  KEDOR-LA’OMER’S  ROUTE. 

It  is  probable,  indeed  it  may  be  said  to  be  certain,  that  the  route 
of  Kedor-la’omer  toward  Canaan  was  up  along  the  eastern  bank 
of  the  Euphrates  to  Syria,  and  thence  down  by  Damascus;  for 
this  was  the  only  practicable  military  road  from  Elam  to  Syria. 
The  great  Arabian  desert  was,  and  ever  has  been,  impassable  for 
such  an  army  as  his.1  From  Damascus  he  moved  down  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  and  of  the  great  mountain  range  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  And  he  and  his  allies,  as  they  went  along  this  route, 
“ smote  the  Rephaim  in  Ashteroth  Karnaim,  and  the  Zuzim  in 
Ham,  and  the  Emim  in  the  plain  of  Kiriathaim,  and  the  Horites 
in  their  mount  Seir,  unto  El-Paran,  which  is  by  the  wilderness.” 2 

37 : 25],  many  a long  train  of  Amu  with  their  hales  of  rich  clothing,  and  cosmetics, 
and  metals,  would  pass  within  reach  of  those  Canaanite  lords,  who  must  not  be 
allowed  to  levy  their  blackmail  for  their  own  independent  profit.”  (Tomkins’s 
Times  of  Abraham,  p.  182.) 

1 A careful  study  of  the  route  of  Kedor-la’omer  was  first  made,  in  modern  times, 
by  Prof.  Tuch,  of  Leipzig.  It  was  published  under  the  title  “ Bemerkungen  zu 
Genesis  XIV.,”  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  morgenldndischen  Gesellschaft,  and 
an  English  translation  of  it,  by  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  appeared  in  Kitto’s  Journal  of 
Sacred  Literature  for  July,  1848.  A more  recent  and  an  admirable  study  of  the 
same  subject,  in  the  light  of  later  discoveries,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Rev.  Henry 
George  Tomkins’s  Studies  in  the  Times  of  Abraham  . 

2 Gen.  14:  5,  6.  “Drawing  together  the  contingents  of  the  different  states  in 
Babylonia,  Kedor-la’omer  would  pass  up  the  Euphrates,  cross  the  Khabour,  perhaps 
at  Arban  (ancient  Sidikan),  the  Belik  near  Kharran,  the  Euphrates  at  Carchemish, 
and  so  [onward],  . . . passing  Aleppo,  Hamath,  and  Emesa  (where,  perhaps,  already 
the  sons  of  Kheth  were  entrenched  in  their  lake  fortress).  The  further  march  is  in- 
dicated in  the  biblical  narrative,  if  we  take  for  granted  (which  we  may  well  do)  that 


36 


KADESH-  B ARNE A. 


This  description  covers  the  regions  of  Bashan  and  Moab  and 
Edom,  and  the  entrance  between  the  lower  mountains  of  Seir  and 
the  iElanitic  Gulf,  or  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah,  into  the  Wilderness  of 
Paran,  or  the  central  desert  of  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula.1 

It  has  been  common  to  suppose  that  “El-Paran,  which  is  by 
the  wilderness,”  was  Aileh,  or  “Eloth,  on  the  shore  [or,  ‘the  lip’] 
of  the  Red  Sea,  in  the  land  of  Edom;”2  because  just  there  was  a 
gateway  of  the  great  route  between  Arabia  and  Egypt  and  Syria.3 
But  it  would  seem  more  probable,  that  this  plantation,  or  grove, 


the  army  returned  over  the  same  ground,  excepting  where  the  contrary  is  stated ; 
Kedor-la’omer  then  doubtless  received  the  homage  and  tribute  of  the  ruler  of 
Damascus;  but  instead  of  pouring  down  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  in  a direct  course 
to  the  revolted  cities,  he  first  cutoff  their  supports,  and  completely  cleared  his  flanks 
by  an  extended  campaign ; for,  sweeping  all  the  highland  plateau  to  the  east  of 
Jordan,  and  following  the  great  ancient  course  of  commerce  where  now  the  Hadj 
road  goes  down  into  Arabia,  he  chastised  and  disabled  the  old  world  tribes  who  had 
evidently  shared  in  the  rebellion.”  (Tomkins’s  Studies , as  above,  p.  185.) 

1 For  added  facts  and  suggestions  as  to  this  route,  and  as  to  various  proposed 
identifications  along  its  course,  see  Davidson’s  translation  of  Tuch,  and  Tomkins’s 
Studies , as  above ; Rawlinson’s  Five  Great  Mon.,  I.,  177 ; Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib. 
Com.  at  Gen.  14:  1-12;  Schaff- Lange  Com.,  Speaker's  Com.,  and  Murphy's  Com.  in 
loco;  also  Wetzstein’s  Reisebericht  uber  JLauran  u.  d.  Trachonen,  pp.  108-113;  Por- 
ter’s Giant  Cities,  pp.  43,  68,  84/.;  Merrill’s  East  of  Jordan,  pp.  328-330;  Oliphant’s 
Land  of  Gilead,  pp.  94-100. 

2 1 Kings  9:  26,  and  “margin.” 

3 “ The  more  surely  we  must  understand  with  the  Septuagint  and  Peshitto 
el  (as  in  Gen.  35:  4 and  Judges  6:  11,  19)  to  be  a plantation  of  terebinth,  the  more 
easily  can  we  consider  ourselves  justified  in  referring  that  name  to  an  oasis  situated, 
on  any  view  of  the  subject,  to  the  west  of  the  Edomite  mountains.  . . . On  closer 
examination,  it  cannot  admit  of  a doubt  that  El-Paran  is  identical  with  Elath- Aileh, 
‘on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea’  (1  Kings  9:  26),  manifestly  at  the  extreme  end  of 
Wadi  Arabah.”  (Tuch,  as  above,  p.  85.) 

But  Wilton  ( The  Negeb  p.  196)  has  shown  that  el,  meaning  “ the  strong,”  applies 
’ to  the  strong  tree  of  the  particular  region,  whether  palm,  terebinth,  tamarisk,  or  oak. 
Hence  it  is  fair  to  consider  “ El-Paran  ” as  the  grove,  or  oasis,  which  was  the  ex- 
hibit and  type  of  the  strength  of  the  wilderness. 

See  Burton  and  Drake’s  Unexplored  Syria  (note  at  p.  68,  Vol.  I.),  as  to  the  use  of 
“ alah  (eloth  and  elath)”  for  the  terebinth  tree  or  groves.  Forster  ( Geog . of  Arabia, 


KEDOR-LA’OMER'S  ROUTE. 


37 


> 

or  oasis,  of  Paran,  “ which  is  upon1  the  wilderness,”  was  the  one 
oasis  which  is  in  mid-desert  on  the  great  highway  across  the  Wil- 
derness of  Paran ; known  in  later  times  as  “ Qala’at  Nukhl,” 2 or 
“Callah  Nahhar,”3  or  “ Bathn-Nakhl,”4  or,  more  commonly,  “ Cas- 
tle Nakhl.”  It  is  there  that  the  great  desert  roads  centre ; and  it 
is  at  that  point  that  a turn  northward  would  naturally  be  made ; 
that  indeed  a turn  northward  must  be  made  in  following  the  road 
Canaanward. 

And  from  the  Wilderness  of  Paran  u they  returned ; ” 5 that  is, 
they  went  back  northward ; but  clearly  not  by  the  way  they  had 
come,  for  their  work  in  Canaan  was  yet  to  be  done.  They  “ came 
to  En-mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh,  and  smote  all  the  country  [the 
field]  of  the  Amalekites,  and  also  the  Amorites  that  dwelt  in 


p.  34),  with  his  wonted  fancifulness,  would  find  in  Elana  a vestige  of  “ Elon  the  Hit- 
tite,”  whose  daughter  was  a wife  of  Esau. 

1 The  Hebrew  word  here  is  ’al  (Sj?),  “ upon.”  They  were  not  upon  the  Wilder- 
ness of  Paran  until  they  ascended  westward  from  the  ’Arabah. 

2 See  Thevenot’s  Reisen,  Part  I.,  Book  II.,  Chap.  17 ; Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in 
Syria,  p.  450;  Map  in  Lepsius’s  Denkmdler,  Abth.  I.;  Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan , p. 
173  ff. ; Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  287,  327  ff.,  and  Map;  etc. 

3 See  Shaw’s  Travels,  p.  477. 

4 See  quotation  from  Hajj  Chalfa’s  Itinerary,  in  Ritter’s  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  42. 
Bonar  ( Desert  of  Sinai,  p.  383)  calls  attention  to  this  designation  of  Chalfa’s,  as 
repeated  by  Wellsted  ( Travels , II.,  458),  and  suggests  that  Butm  may  have  been 
intended  here,  instead  of  Batn.  Butm  is  shown  by  Robinson  {Bib.  Res.,  III.,  15, 
first  edition)  to  have  been  the  terebinth. 

By  a comparison  of  the  authorities  here  quoted,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  oasis  of 
Nakhl  has  been  variously  understood  as  meaning  the  Castle  of  Palms,  the  Valley  of 
Palms,  the  Castle  of  the  Wady,  and  the  Terebinth- Vale;  yet  without  any  purpose, 
on  the  part  of  any  traveler,  of  identifying  its  site  with  the  Palm  Grove,  or  Terebinth 
Plantation  of  Paran.  Any  looking  for  traces  of  the  ancient  name  in  the  later  one  is, 
however,  quite  apart  from,  or  the  geographical  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  oasis 
of  Nakhl  being  the  site  of  the  oasis  which  was  upon  the  Wilderness  of  Paran,  and 
which  was  the  southwesternmost  stretch  of  the  march  of  Kedor-la’omer. 

5 Gen.  14 : 7.  The  Hebrew  word  used  here  indicates  an  abrupt  turn  in  another 
direction ; not  necessarily  a return.  The  word  is  treated  in  a note  farther  on.  See 
Index,  s.  v.  “Turn.” 


38 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Hazezon-tamar,”  “ which  is  En-gedi,” 1 near  the  west  shore  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  All  this  was  prior  to  a severe  battle  in  the  Yale  of 
Siddim,  or  the  Plain  of  the  Dead  Sea,2  with  the  five  kings  of  the 
Cities  of  the  Plain.3  What  was  their  route  from  the  Wilderness 
of  Paran  to  the  Plain  of  the  Dead  Sea  ? The  settlement  of  this 
question  is  an  important  step  toward  the  locating  of  Kadesh. 

The  choice  of  routes  in  that  country  was,  and  is,  but  limited. 
“ We  must  bear  in  mind,”  says  Palmer,4  “ that  roads  in  such  re- 
gions as  this  are  determined  by  certain  physical  conditions.”  It  is 
practically  certain,  therefore,  that  the  invading  army  either  turned 
directly  up  the  ’Arabah,  or  swept  across  the  desert  at  the  south  of 
the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  and,  at  Nakhl,  turned  northward 
westerly  of  Jebel  'Araeef  en-Naqah.  Robinson  says5  emphatically 
on  this  point : “ The  whole  district  adjacent  to  the  ’Arabah,  north 
of  Jebel  ?Araif  and  el-Mukrah, . . is  mountainous ; and  is  composed 
...  of  steep  ridges  running  mostly  from  east  to  west,  and  present- 
ing almost  insuperable  obstacles  to  the  passage  of  a road  parallel  to 
the  ’Arabah.  In  consequence,  no  great  route  now  leads,  or  ever  has 
led,  through  this  district;  but  the  roads  from  ’Akabah,  which 
ascend  from  Wady  el-’Arabah  and  in  any  degree  touch  the  high 
plateau  of  the  desert  south  of  el-Mukrah,  must  necessarily  curve 
to  the  west,  and  passing  around  the  base  of  Jebel  ?Araif  el-Yakah, 
continue  along  the  western  side  of  this  mountainous  tract.” 

To  have  entered  Canaan  by  way  of  any  of  the  mountain  passes 
at  the  west  of  the  upper  'Arabah,  would  have  been  next  to  impos- 
sible for  such  an  army  as  Kedor-la’omer’s ; 6 especially  if,  as  we 

1 2 Chron.  20 : 2.  2 Gen.  14 : 3.  3 Gen.  14 : 8-12. 

*Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  511.  b Bib.  Res.,  I.,  186/. 

6 For  the  difficulties  of  these  passes,  see  the  testimony  of  Seetzen,  Schubert,  Robin- 

son, and  Williams,  and  the  added  historical  facts,  collated  by  Tuch,  in  Jour,  of  Sac. 

Lit.,  July,  1848,  p 93.  See,  also,  Lord  Lindsay’s  Letters  on  Holy  Land,  II.,  46; 
Olin’s  Travels,  II.,  60;  Durbin’s  Observ.  in  East,  I.,  200;  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible , 

I.,  340  ; Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Pal.,  p.  99. 


KED OR-LA’ OMENS  ROUTE. 


39 


may  fairly  suppose,  that  army  came  with  the  war  chariots  which, 
according  to  Egyptian,  Chaldean,  and  Assyrian  records,  played  so 
important  a part  in  the  early  military  movements  of  Africa  and 
Asia.1  Those  passes  were  certainly  not  to  be  compared,  for  ease  of 
travel,  with  the  great  * highway  of  commerce  at  the  south  and  west 
of  the  ’Azazimeh  mountains. 

The  probability  of  an  ancient  road  running  diagonally  across  the  ’Azazimeh  moun- 
tains from  the  ’Arabah,  was  suggested  by  Wilton  ( The  Negeb , p.  175  ff.);  and  the 
remains  of  a Roman  road  in  that  direction  were  discovered  by  Palmer  (see  Res.  of 
Exod.,  II.,  421  ff.) ; but  as  this  road  runs  into  the  other  at  Abdeh  (Eboda)  near  the 
western  side  of  the  mountain  plateau,  and  is  thenceforward  identical  with  it  north- 
ward, its  discussion  is  not  essential  to  the  settlement  of  this  question.  (For  the  line 
of  this  diagonal  road,  see  Zimmermann’s  Karte  von  Syr.  u.  Pal.,  Sect.  X.) 

1 See  Gen.  41 : 43 ; 46 : 29 ; 50 : 9 ; Exod.  14:  7 ff. ; Josh.  11:  4,  6,  9;  17:  16; 
Judges  4:  3.  “And  Elam  bare  the  quiver  with  chariots  of  men  and  horsemen,” 
says  the  prophet,  in  foreseeing  another  visit  of  the  people  of  that  land  to  the  land 
of  Palestine  (Isa.  22 : 6). 

Egyptian  inscriptions  antedate  those  of  Chaldea  and  Assyria ; but,  as  is  indicated 
in  the  enterprise  of  Kedor-la’omer,  the  East  was  clearly  in  advance  of  Egypt  in  the 
art  and  equipments  of  warfare.  The  earliest  mention,  on  the  monuments,  of  the 
horse  in  Egypt,  is  in  the  Inscription  of  Aahmes  ( Rec . of  Past,  IV.,  5-8),  which 
tells  of  the  capture  of  “a  horse  and  a chariot”  in  Ethiopia,  in  the  days  of  Thot- 
mes  I.  of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty,  who  himself  employed  horses  and  chariots  in 
Mesopotamia.  But  the  horse  is  here  designated  by  its  Semitic  name  “soos”  (Ebers’ s 
Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  249  ; and  Philip  Smith’s  note  in  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  288). 
The  chariot-driver  is  also  known  by  the  Semitic  name  “ kazan  ” (Brugsch,  as  above, 
I.,  342) ; and  the  inference  is  legitimate,  that  the  horse  and  chariot  were  originally 
brought  from  the  East.  Indeed,  it  is  generally  agreed  by  Egyptologists  that  “the 
horse  had  been  introduced  into  Egypt  by  the  Hykshos”  some  time  before  its  first 
appearance  on  the  monuments.  (See  Ebers  and  Brugsch,  as  above ; Wilkinson’s 
Anc.  Egyptians,  I.,  236  and  Birch’s  note  ; Villiers  Stuart’s  Nile  Gleanings,  p.296; 
Wilson’s  Egypt  of  the  Past,  p.  38;  also,  Philip  Smith’s  Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  pp.  84-89 ; 
and  Houghton’s  Natural  Hist,  of  Ancients,  pp.  84-89.)  Ebers  even  notes  the  Thir- 
teenth Dynasty  as  the  period  of  the  introduction  of  the  horse,  although  he  proffers 
no  direct  proof  of  this  fact  {Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  99).  Canon  Cook  ( Speaker's  Com., 
Append,  to  Exod.)  says : “ It  is  very  probable  that  horses  were  first  introduced  under 
the  Twelfth  Dynasty,  after  the  reign  of  Osirtasin.”  If,  then,  the  Hykshos  introduced 
horses  and  chariots  into  Egypt  from  Asia,  doubtless  there  were  horses  and  chariots  in 
use  in  Asia  before  the  Hykshos  went  to  Egypt;  and  that  carries  us  back  to  as  early  a 


40 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Moreover,  if  Kedor-la’omer  had  reached  the  shores  of  the  Dead 
Sea  from  the  south  and  east,  he  would  have  come  to  the  Vale  of 
Siddim,  “ which  is  [or,  is  at]  the  Salt  Sea,” 1 and  would  there  have 
given  battle  to  the  kings  of  the  Pentapolis,  without  passing  through 
the  country — or  the  field — of  the  Amalekites,  and  the  region  of 
the  Amorites,  as  the  sacred  narrative  assures  us  was  the  case.2 
This  “field”  of  the  Amalekites  was,  probably,  the  country  after- 
wards possessed  by  the  Amalekites,3  on  the  southern  border  of  the 

date  as  Kedor-la’omer’s.  The  conclusion  is  therefore  well-nigh  inevitable,  that  such 
an  expedition  as  Kedor-la’omer’s  into  Canaan  was  not  undertaken  without  this 
agency  of  warfare.  M.  Pietrement  (Origines  du  Cheval  Domestique  p.455,)  affirms 
that  the  horse  was  introduced  into  western  Europe,  from  the  East,  as  early  as  9,600 
years  before  the  Christian  era.  That  certainly  was  prior  to  Kedor-la’omer’s  day. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  the  Septuagint  renders  Bfcn  rekhush , in  Gen.  14 : 11,  16, 
21,  by  ttjv  ltotov,  ten  hippon,  “ the  horse,”  or  “ the  cavalry.” 

1 Gen.  14 : 3. 

Whether  the  Yale  of  Siddim  and  the  Cities  of  the  Plain  were  at  the  southern  end 
or  at  the  northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  is  a disputed  question.  The  strongest  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  northerly  site  are  presented  by  Grove  in  Smith’s  Bible  Dic- 
tionary, under  the  various  heads  “Siddim,  the  Yale  of,”  “Sea,  the  Salt,”  and 
“ Sodom,”  and  by  Tristram,  in  his  Land  of  Israel  (pp.  361-367).  In  favor  of  the 
former  generally  accepted  site  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Sea,  the  best  presentation  is 
made  by  Robinson,  in  his  Biblical  Researches  (II.,  p.  187-192),  and  by  Wolcott,  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1868  (Article,  “The  Site  of  Sodom”),  and  again 
in  the  latter’s  notes  on  Grove’s  articles,  in  the  American  edition  of  Smith’s  Bible 
Dictionary.  But  whichever  view  of  this  question  be  accepted,  the  argument  con- 
cerning Kedor-la’omer’s  route  remains  the  same.  As  Wolcott  says  on  that  point: 
“ The  northern  invaders,  after  making  the  distant  circuit  of  the  valley  on  the  east 
and  south,  came  up  on  the  west,  and  smote  Engedi  and  secured  that  pass.  The 
cities  and  their  kings  were  in  the  deep  valley  below,  whether  north  or  south  or 
opposite  is  wholly  immaterial,  as  far  as  we  can  discover,  in  relation  either  to 
the  previous  route  of  conquest,  or  to  the  subsequent  topographical  sequence  of 
the  story.” 

2 Gen.  14  : 7,  8. 

3 sedheh  ha’-Amaleqee),  “ all  the  field  of  the  Amalekites.”  It 
is  not  said  here  that  the  Amalekites  were  smitten,  but  that  their  field — the  region 
which  subsequently  became  theirs — was  now  swept  over.  As  Amalek  was  a grand- 
son of  Esau  (Gen.  36  : 10-12),  and  there  is  no  mention  in  the  Bible  of  Amalekites  as 


KED OR- LA ’ OMERS  ROUTE. 


41 


mountains  of  Judah; 1 and  the  Amorites  of  En-gedi2  were  between 
that  and  the  Dead  Sea  plains.  The  indications  of  the  Scripture 
narrative,  therefore,  are,  that  Kedor-la?omer’s  northward  route  from 
the  Wilderness  of  Paran  toward  the  Dead  Sea  included  the  great 
caravan  route  which  passes  up  from  the  mid-desert  by  way  of 
Beer-sheba;  the  route  which  is  spoken  of  as  “the  Way  of  Shur” 
— or  the  road  through  Canaan  to  Egypt  known  as  the  Shur  Road ; 3 
and  it  follows  that  “ En-mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh,”  is  to  be  loca- 
ted on  that  road  or  convenient  to  it,  at  some  point  between  the 
Wilderness  of  Paran  and  the  southern  border  of  Canaan — where 
was  the  field  of  the  Amalekites.4 

an  existing  people  before  his  day,  we  may  take  this  reference  to  them  as  by  anticipa- 
tion. Tremellius  and  Junius,  in  their  Genevan  Bible,  render  this  passage:  “ Incolas 
agri,  qui  nunc  est  HamaleJcitorum  ; " “ Inhabitants  of  the  field  which  now  is  of  the 
Amalekites.”  This  view  of  the  passage  is  taken  by  Clarius,  and  Munster,  as  cited  in 
Grit.  Sac. ; and  by  Lyra,  Malvenda,  Menochius,  and  Fischer,  as  cited  in  Pool’s  Synops. 
Grit,  in  loco ; also  by  Bush  ( Notes  on  Gen.  in  loco) ; . Keil  and  Delitzsch  ( Bib.  Com. 
in  loco) ; Hengstenberg  ( Auth . of  Pent.,  II.,  ,279  ff.) ; De  Sola,  Lidenthal,  and 
Raphall’s  Translation,  in  loco;  Schaff- Lange  Com.,  and  Speaker's  Com.,  at  Gen.  36: 
12 ; Murphy’s  Com.  on  Gen.  (at  14 : 7 and  36 : 12) ; Kurtz  in  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  Ill , 
42  ff.;  Fairbairn’s  Imp.  Bib.  Die.,  and  Alexander's  Kitto  s.  v.  “Amalekites;  ” Sayce, 
in  The  Queen’s  Printers’  Aids  to  Student  of  Bible,  p.  62  ; and  others. 

Arabic  historians  claim  that  there  was  an  Amalek  in  the  fifth  generation  from 
Noah,  in  the  line  of  Ham  ; and  that  his  descendants  were  the  early  people  of  Canaan. 
For  references  to  this  tradition,  see  Abulfeda’s  Hist.  Anteislam.,  pp.  16,  178 ; Re- 
land’s Palaestina,  Book  I.,  Cap.  14;  Winer’s  Bibl.  Realworterb.,  s.  v.  “Amalekiter;  ” 
Lenormant  and  Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  II.,  145,  288-291,  etc.  Winer,  and  Len- 
ormant  and  Chevallier  (as  above),  Bevan  (Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “Amale- 
kites,”) Ewald  (Hist,  of  Israel,  I.,  108  /.,  248-254;  II.,  43/.),  Yon  Gerlach  (Com.  on 
Pent.,  at  Gen.  14 : 7),  and  others,  have  followed  the  Arabic  tradition  in  counting  the 
Amalekites  named  in  Genesis  14 : 7 as  of  an  older  stock  than  Esau.  But  the  Arabic 
traditions  have  little  or  no  value  for  the  days  of  the  Old  Testament,  save  as  they  con- 
form to  that  source  of  history.  (See  a reference  to  Noldeke  on  this  point  in  Speaker's 
Com.,  at  Gen.  36  : 12.) 

1 Num.  13 : 29.  2 2 Chron.  20:  2. 

3 Gen.  16 : 7 ; 46  : 5-7 ; 1 Sam.  27  : 8. 

4 See  Fries’s  “Ueber  die  Lage  von  Kades,”  in  Stud.  xi.  Krit.,  1854,  p.  6. 


42 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


3.  A STRATEGIC  HALTING-PLACE.  , 

Indeed,  what  more  probable  halting-place  would  there  be  in 
this  entire  region  for  an  invading  army  which  came  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  great  highways  of  travel,  than  the  spot  where  all 
the  roads  from  east,  west,  north,  and  south  come  together  into  a 
common  trunk — if  such  a place  there  be  ? That  there  is  a place 
answering  to  this  description  was  first  pointed  out  by  Robinson, 
as  already  referred  to,  and  his  impressions  have  been  verified  by 
subsequent  travelers.  Coming  from  Sinai  to  Palestine  by  the  east- 
ern route  (“  the  Way  of  Mount  Seir; ”*  or,  the  Mount  Seir  Road) 
Robinson  was  enabled,  after  rounding  Jebel  ’Araeef  en-Naqah, 
from  the  Wilderness  of  Paran,  “to  perceive  the  reason  why  all  the 
roads  leading  across  it  [the  desert]  from  ’Akabah,  and  from  the 
convent  [at  Mount  Sinai]  to  Hebron  and  Gaza,  should  meet  together 
in  one  main  trunk  in  the  middle  of  the  desert.”1 2  The  reason  is, 
that  the  whole  face  of  the  region,  which  is  the  same  now  as  in  the 
days  of  Kedor-la’omer,  renders  this  inevitable.3  Proceeding  along 
this  inevitable  highway  to  a plain  above  Wady  Aboo  Retemat, 
called  Wady  es-Seram,  eastward  of  Jebel  el-Helal,  and  not  far 
from  Jebel  Muwaylih,  Robinson  found  that  here  “comes  in  the 
great  western  road  from  the  convent  of  Sinai  to  Gaza,”  joining 
those  already  combined  ; and  that,  therefore,  at  this  point  “ all  the 
roads  across  the  desert  [including,  of  course, .the  midland  road  from 
Egypt]  were  now  combined  into  one  main  trunk”  4 A military 
chieftain  as  enterprising  as  Kedor-la’omer  would  not  be  likely  to 
overlook  such  a strategic  point  as  that , when  conducting  a cam- 
paign for  the  purpose  of  road-seizing.  He  would  naturally  halt 
there,  and  guard  himself  against  surprises  from  flank  or  rear,  and 
also  reconnoitre  in  advance  before  moving  forward  to  his  main 


1 Deut.  1 : 2. 

3 See  page  38,  sxipra. 


2 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  186. 

* Bib.  Res.  I.,  189-i91. 


A STRATEGIC  HALTING-PLACE. 


43 


attack  in  Canaan.  In  this  immediate  vicinity,  therefore,  “ En- 
mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh,” 1 should  be  looked  for,  so  far  as  we  can 
judge  from  the  Bible  story  of  Kedor-la’omer. 

This  first  mention  of  Kadesh  refers  to  a period  four  centuries 
prior  to  the  exodus.  It  is  probable  that  the  name  “ Kadesh  ” is 
here  used  by  the  writer  of  Genesis  as  the  name  by  which  the  place 
was  known  after  its  occupancy  by  the  tabernacle.  An  earlier 
name  of  this  place  might  seem,  from  this  text,  to  have  been  En- 
mishpat — the  Fountain  of  Judgment;2  but  even  that  name  may 
have  attached  to  it  after  formal  judgment  had  been  there  passed  on 
rebellious  Israel,  and  on  both  Israel’s  leader  and  Israel’s  high- 
priest.3  It  is  thought  by  some,4  that  long  before  the  days  of 
Moses,  this  place  “ was  a sanctuary  upon  an  oasis  in  the  desert,  in 
whose  still  solitude  an  oracle  had  its  seat ; ” and  that  “ as  from 
Egypt  pilgrimages  were  made  to  the  near  oracle  of  Ammon  in  the 
desert,  so  from  Edom  and  other  adjacent  districts  many  oracle 
seekers,  in  the  most  ancient  times  . . . came  to  Kadesh,”  “ in 
order  to  know  the  decisions  of  the  gods.”  But  of  this  there  is  no 
proof.  It  is,  at  the  best,  only  an  inference  from  the  name  given  it 
in  its  first  Bible  mention.5 


1  Gen.  14 : 7. 

2 This  view  is  taken  by  Grotius,  and  Fagius,  as  cited  in  Crit.  Sac. ; by  the  Speaker’s 
Com.;  Kalisch’s  Com. ; all  in  loco ; also  by  Ewald  {Hist,  of  Israel , II.,  193) ; Ritter 
{Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  428);  Stanley  {Hist,  of  Jewish  Ch.,  I.,  202) ; and  others. 

3 So  think  : Jerome  {Com.  on  Genesis) ; “ Rashi”  {’al  ha- Torah) ; Tremellius  and 
Junius  {Genevan  Bible) ; Patrick  {Crit.  Com.);  Menochius,  Fischer,  a Lapide,  and 
Bonfrerius,  as  cited  in  Pool’s  Synops.  Crit. ; Bush  {Notes  on  Gen.);  all  in  loco;  and 
many  others. 

“ Rashi  ” is  wrongly  cited  by  Grotius,  as  deeming  the  name  En-mishpat  the  earlier 
one;  and  this  misquotation  is  perpetuated  through  the  Critici  Sacri,  the  Synopsis 
Criticorum , and  later  works,  after  the  common  mistake  of  failing  to  verify  quotations 
by  a reference  to  the  original. 

4 See  Ewald,  Ritter,  and  Stanley,  as  above. 

5 In  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  {in  loco),  En-mishpat  is  paraphrased,  maishar  pelug 

deena  “Plain  of  Division  of  Judgment.”  This  paraphrase  is 


44 


KA  DESH-BA  RNEA , 


4.  THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 

Kadesh  next  appears  in  the  Bible  text  as  an  apparently  well- 
known  landmark  eastward,  or  possibly  northward,  as  over  against 
“Bered”  and  “Shur”  on  the  west,  or  south.  Hagar  had  fled 
from  the  Hebron  home  of  Abraham,  down  along  the  caravan  road 
toward  Egypt.  She  had  rested  by  a prominent  watering-place  of 
that  route — “ the  fountain  in  the  Way  of  Shur.”  1 The  location  of 
that  fountain  is  described  as  “ between  Kadesh  and  Bered.” 2 
Again,  Abraham  moved  down  from  Hebron  through  the  Negeb, 
desertward ; and  he  sojourned  at  a point  “ between  Kadesh  and 
Shur ; ” 3 also  “ at  Gerar,”  which,  again,  may  have  been  the  point 
indicated  as  “ between  Kadesh  and  Shur.” 

Shur  is  subsequently  referred  to  in  the  text  as  “ before  Egypt, 
as  thou  goest  toward  Assyria ; ” 4 and  again  as  “ over  against 
Egypt ; ” 5 and  as  “ even  unto  the  land  of  Egypt.” 6 “ Before 

Egypt,”  here,  clearly  means  “ in  the  face  of”  Egypt,  east  of 
Egypt.7  “ As  thou  goest  to  Assyria  ” means  one  of  two  things  : 

understood  by  “ Rashi”  as  indicating  the  opinion  of  Onkelos  that  here  was  a seat  of 
judgment  for  the  surrounding  peoples.  Rashi’s  elaboration  of  the  simple  statement 
by  Onkelos,  with  which  Rashi  disagrees,  is  cited  by  Grotius,  and  farther  elaborated 
by  the  fanciful  Ewald ; to  be  adopted  and  re-elaborated  by  Stanley  and  others. 

i Gen.  16  : 7. 

The  spot  by  which  ' the  angel  of  the  Lord  found  ’ Hagar  was  not  merely  * a foun- 
tain of  water,’  as  we  read  in  our  version,  but  a well-known  spot,  ‘ the  spring’  of 
water  in  the  wilderness — 1 the  spring  in  the  way  of  Shur.’  ” (Stanley’s  Sinai  and 
Pal.,  p.  477.) 

a Gen.  16 : 14.  3 Gen.  20 : 1.  4 Gen.  25  : 18.  5 1 Sam.  15  : 7.  6 1 Sam.  27  : 8. 

7 “ The  points  of  the  compass  were  marked  by  the  Jews  after  the  following  man- 
ner: With  the  face  turned  to  the  rising  of  the  sun,  before  is  east;  behind  [or  “ back- 
side ” (Exod.  3:  1),  see  Gesenius’s  Heb.  Lex.  s.  v.  “Achor”]  is  west;  the  right- 

hand  is  the  south;  the  left-hand  the  north Theman  and  Jamin  [Yemen], 

denoting  the  south,  means  lying  on  the  right  hand.”  (Von  Raumer’s  Palastina,  p.  20.) 

On  this  subject  of  orientation  see  Michaelis’s  Dissertatio  de  Locorum  Differentia. 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  orientation  differed,  however,  from  the  Hebrew. 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


45 


either,  in  the  direction  of  Assyria ; that  is,  northeastward ; or, 
more  probably,  on  the  highway  to  Assyria ; that  is,  by  way  of 
Damascus.  The  only  feasible  highway  from  Egypt  to  Assyria, 
was  and  is,  northward  through  Syria,  and  thence  southeasterly 
through  Mesopotamia  ; never  across  the  trackless  Arabian  desert.1 
“ Shur  ” means  “ a wall ; ” and  from  its  meaning,  as  well  as  from 
the  various  references  to  it  in  the  text,  it  would  seem  clear  that 
Shur  was  a wall,  or  barrier,  of  some  kind,  across  the  great  north- 
eastern highways  out  of  Egypt,  and  this  at  a point  on  or  near  the 
eastern  boundary  line  of  Egypt. 

A favorite  identification  of  Shur  has  been  in  a range  of  moun- 
tains a little  to  the  eastward  from  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  having  the 
appearance  of  a wall,  and  bearing  the  name  Jebel  er-Rahah,  being 
in  fact  the  northwestern  end,  or  extension,  of  Jebel  et-Teeh.2  “ As 


1 See  page  35,  supra. 

There  seems  hardly  room  for  doubt  on  this  point.  The  physical  structure  of  the 
region,  and  all  history,  biblical  and  extra-biblical,  tends  to  its  proof.  Yet  Mr. 
J.  Baker  Greene,  in  his  nondescript  work,  The  Hebrew  Migration  from  Egypt 
(p.  168,  note),  says  of  this  reference  to  Shur  in  Genesis  25:  18:  “This  passage  is 
somewhat  ambiguous.  It  means,  as  is  most  probable,  that  a traveler  from  Judea  to 
Assyria  would  descend  the  Araba  [ ! ! ],  and  thus  have  on  his  right  hand,  between 
him  and  Egypt,  the  plateau  of  Et  Tib,  known  as  the  midbhar  of  Shur.  If  the  trav- 
eler cross  the  Jordan  on  his  way  to  Assyria,  this  reference  to  Shur  and  Egypt  is  un- 
intelligible.” And  this  remarkable  statement  is  a fair  illustration  of  the  confused 
jumbling  of  that  entire  work,  in  its  dealings  with  geography,  history,  and  philology. 

2 “ Some  twelve  or  fourteen  miles  from  the  coast,  and  parallel  to  it,  runs  Jebel  er- 
R&hah,  appearing  in  the  distance  as  a long,  flat-headed  range  of  white  cliffs,  which 
forms,  as  it  were,  a wall  inclosing  the  desert  on  the  north.  Hence  probably  arose  the 
name  of  the  ‘ Wilderness  of  Shur  ’ (Exod.  15  : 22) ; for  the  meaning  of  the  name 
Shur  is  ‘a  wall.’  ” (F.  W.  Holland,  in  The  Recovery  of  Jerusalem , p.  527.) 

This  view  is  accepted  by  Porter,  in  Alexander’s  Kitto,  Art.  “Wandering,  Wilder- 
ness of ; ” Bartlett,  in  his  From  Egypt  to  Palestine , p.  186 ; by  the  Editor  of  the 
Queen’s  Printers’  Aids  to  the  Student  of  the  Holy  Bible , p.  28 ; and  others. 

Rowlands  reports  the  name  “ Jebel  es-Sffr  ” as  still  given  by  the  Arabs  to  this 
mountain  range  (see  Williams’s  Holy  City,  p.  489,  and  Imp.  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Shur”). 
He  is  followed  in  this  by  Wilton  ( The  Negeb,  p.  6) ; Tuch  {Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.  for 


46 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


we  stand  at ? Ay un  Musa/’  says  Palmer,1  “ and  glance  over  the 
desert  at  the  Jebels  er-Rahah  and  et-Tih,  which  border  the  gleam- 
ing plain,  we  at  once  appreciate  the  fact  that  these  long  wall-like 
escarpments  are  the  chief,  if  not  the  only,  prominent  characteristics 
of  this  portion  of  the  wilderness,  and  we  need  not  wonder  that  the 
Israelites  should  have  named  this  memorable  spot  after  its  most 
salient  feature,  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  or  the  wall.”  But  a prime 
objection  to  this  identification  is,  that  Jebel  er-Rahah  does  not 
stand  u before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward  Assyria.”  It  is  too 
far  south  for  that.  A “ Avail,”  better  meeting  the  requirements  of 
the  text  than  this  mountain  range,  is  to  be  looked  for  ; nor  will  a 
search  for  it  be  in  vain.2 

Inasmuch  as  there  Avas  a great  defensive  Wall  built  across  the 
eastern  frontier  of  Egypt,  “ as  thou  goest  toAvard  Assyria ; ” a 
Wall  that  was  hardly  less  prominent  in  the  history  of  ancient 
Egypt  than  has  been  the  Great  Wall  of  China  in  the  history  of 
the  “ Middle  Kingdom ;”  it  would  seem  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  Avorld,  to  suppose  that  the  biblical  mentions  of  the  Wall  “ that 
is  before  Egypt,”  had  reference  to — the  Wall  that  was  before 
Egypt. 

The  earliest  discovered  mention  of  this  Wall  is  in  an  ancient 
papyrus  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty  (of  the  old3  Egyptian  empire, 


July,  1848,  p.  89) ; Stewart  ( Tent  and  Khan,  p.  54) ; Faussett  (Bib.  Cyc.,  s.  v.  “ Shur  ”) ; 
Burton  ( Gold  Mines  of  Mid.,  p.  101) ; and  others.  Yet  this  mountain  may  take  its 
name  from  the  wilderness,  instead  of  giving  a name  to  it,  if  in  fact  the  name  is  to  be 
found  there.  Laborde,  indeed,  applies  the  name  “ Djebel  Soar”  to  a mountain  peak 
still  eastward  of  the  Rahah  range  (see  Map  in  his  Voyage  de  V Arabie  Petrel.) 

1 Dcs.  of  Exod.,  I.,  38/. 

2 Others,  again,  have  counted  Shur  as  the  name  of  a town  on  the  Egyptian  bor- 
ders, toward  Arabia.  So,  e.  g.,  Ewald  (Hist,  of  Israel,  II.,  194,  note) ; Kurtz  (Hist, 
of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  13) ; R.  S.  Pool  (Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Shur”) ; and  others. 

3 The  terms  Old  Empire,  and  Middle  Empire,  and  New  Empire  are  employed  dif- 
ferently by  different  writers.  Lepsius,  Bunsen,  Ebers,  Chabas  and  others  speak  of 
all  the  dynasties  which  preceded  the  Hykshos  kings,  as  the  Old  Empire.  \\  ilkinson, 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


47 


prior  to  the  clays  of  the  Hykshos  invasion),  which  was  obtained  by 
Lepsius  for  the  Museum  of  Berlin.  This  papyrus  gives  the  stoiy 
of  Sineh,  or  Saneha,  an  Egyptian  traveler  into  the  lands  eastward 
from  Egypt.  As  he  journeyed,  he  came  to  the  frontier  Wall 
“ which  the  king  had  made  to  keep  off  the  Sakti,”  or  eastern  for- 
eigners. It  was  a closely  guarded  barrier.  There  were  “ watchers 
upon  the  Wall  in  daily  rotation.”  Eluding  the  sentries  in  the 
darkness  of  the  night,  he  wandered  beyond  in  a dry  and  thirsty 
land,  like  that  which  the  Hebrews  found  in  that  same  Wilderness 
of  the  Wall  several  centuries  after  him,  when  their  cry  was,  u What 
shall  we  drink  ?”  1 His  story  was  : 

“Thirst  overtook  me  in  my  journey; 

My  throat  was  parched, 

I said,  This  is  the  taste  of  death.’’ 2 

Chabas 3 understands  the  term  “Anbu,”  which  is  here  rendered 
the  Wall,  and  which  is  of  frequent  recurrence  in  the  Egyptian 
records,  to  refer  to  a defensive  Wall 4 built  across  the  eastern  front 
of  Lower  Egypt  by  the  first  king  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty — - 
Amenemhat  I.  And  Ebers 5 coincides  fully  with  Chabas  in  this 
understanding. 

Again  in  one  of  the  Anastasi  Papyri,  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty, 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  this  Wall  is  mentioned  in  the 
report  from  a scribe  of  an  effort  to  re-capture  two  fugitive  slaves 
who  had  fled  towards  the  eastern  desert ; and  who,  before  he  could 

Birch,  Brugsch,  Rawlinson,  Mariette,  and  others,  put  the  beginning  of  the  Middle 
Empire  at  an  earlier  period  than  the  Hykshos  domination.  Hence  the  Twelfth 
Dynasty  would  by  some  be  counted  in  the  Old  Empire ; by  others,  in  the  Middle 
Empire. 

1 Exod.  15 : 22-24. 

2 Goodwin’s  translation  in  Rec.  of  Past,  VI.,  136.  See  also  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of 
Egypt,  I.,  147.  The  papyrus  itself  is  given  in  facsimile  in  Lepsius’s  Denkmaler, 
Abth.  VI.,  Bl.  104. 

3 Etudes  sur  V Antique  Histoire,  p.  99  jf.  4 “La  muraille  defensive  ” 

5 JEgypt.  u.  d.  Bucli.  Mose's,  pp.  78-85. 


48 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


overtake  them,  had  already  “ got  beyond  the  region  of  the  Wall  to 
Uie  north  of  the  migdol  of  king  Seti  Mineptah.”  1 

In  explanation  of  the  term  Wall  as  found  in  this  papyrus, 
Brugsch  says  that  there  was  at  that  time  “ at  the  entrance  of  the 
road  leading  to  Palestine,  near  the  Lake  Sirbonis,  a small  fortifi- 
cation, to  which,  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty, 
the  Egyptians  gave  the  name  Anbu,  that  is  ‘ the  wall/  or  ‘ fence/ 
a name  which  the  Greeks  translated  according  to  their  custom, 
calling  it  Gerrhon  (to  Ei/>/5ov),  or  in  the  plural  Gerrha  ( za  Yippa). 
The  Hebrews  likewise  rendered  the  meaning  of  the  Egyptian 
name  by  a translation,  designating  the  military  post  on  the  Egyp- 
tian frontier  by  the  name  of  ‘Shur/  which  in  their  language 
signifies  exactly  the  same  as  the  word  ‘Anbu ’ in  Egyptian,  and 
the  word  ‘Gerrhon’  in  Greek,  namely  the  ‘Wall.’”2 

That  the  “Wall”  of  the  Egyptian  frontier  was  not  limited  to  a 
single  small  fortress  near  the  Lake  Serbonis,  as  would  seem  to  be 
intimated  in  this  explanation  by  Brugsch,  is  apparent  from  his 
own  History,  while  it  is  also  abundantly  evidenced  from  various 
other  sources.3  In  speaking  of  Aahmes,  or  Amasis,  the  first  king 
of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty,  Brugsch  says  that,  having  driven  out 
the  eastern  foreigners  from  Egypt,  the  king  sufficiently  protected 
the  eastern  frontier  of  the  Low  Country  against  new  invasions  by 
a line  of  fortresses .4  And  again,  Brugsch  refers  to  the  Wall  as 
barring  the  road  out  of  Egypt  desertward,  in  the  days  of  Arnen- 

1 Brugsch’s  Ilist.  of  Egypt,  II.,  138,  389.  2 Ibid . II.,  375. 

3 Indeed,  the  very  term  “Anbu,”  which  Brugsch  gives  as  the  designation  of  the 
Wall-fortress,  is  the  plural  form ; its  singular  being  “Anb.”  (See  Renouf ’s  Egyptian 
Grammar , pp.  5,  11;  also  Bunsen’s  “Dictionary”  in  Egypt's  Place  in  Univ.  Hist., 
Vol.  V.,  p.  345.)  And  Brugsch  finds  also  the  plural  form  “ Gerrha,”  in  the  Greek. 
A reference  to  Brugsch’s  Dictionnaire  Geographique  (p.  52)  shows  that  the  ideo- 
gram for  Anb  (“  Wall  ”)  is  accompanied  with  the  determinatives  of  the  plural ; and  his 
translation  of  it  there  (where  it  does  not  affect  his  theory  of  the  exodus)  is  in  the 
plural,  “les  mur allies V 


4 Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  320. 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


49 


emhat  I.,  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty.1  One  fort  could  not  fairly  be 
called  a Wall;  nor  could  it  be  “a  line  of  fortresses.” 

As  to  the  period  of  the  original  building  of  this  frontier  Wall, 
and  as  to  its  precise  limits,  there  has  been  much  confusion  among 
historians;  far  more  than  as  to  the  existence  of  the  Wall  itself. 
Diodorus  Siculus,  writing,  nineteen  centuries  ago,  of  the  wonderful 
exploits  of  Sesoosis,  or  Sesostris  (who  seems  to  have  been  a com- 
position-hero, made  up  of  the  facts  and  legends  of  the  greater 
Egyptian  sovereigns  from  the  earlier  to  the  later  days),  records 
that  that  king  “ walled  the  side  of  Egypt  that  inclines  eastward 
against  Syria  and  Arabia,  from  Pelusium  to  Heliopolis,  the  length 
being  about  fifteen  hundred  stadia ; ” 2 say  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  English  miles.  Abulfeda,3  early  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
gave  the  Arabic  traditions  of  the  building  of  the  Great  Wall  of 
Egypt.  His  Arabic  designations  of  the  Pharaohs  mentioned 
(Delukah,  Darkon,  Ibn-Bekthus,  Todas,  etc.),  do  not  help  to  the 
identifying  of  the  dynasties ; but  his  narrative  evidently  has  to  do 
with  the  time  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Hykshos  kings, — or  the 
“Amalekites  ” as  he  calls  them, — and  the  domination  of  their  suc- 
cessors. Of  the  king  Delukah, — “ who  is  called  El-JAjoos,”  or 
“The  Old  Woman,” — Abulfeda  say£:  “And  he  built  before  the 
land  of  Egypt,  from  one  of  its  regions  at  the  edge  of  Aswan,  to 
the  other,  a Wall  contiguous  to  this  end,” — the  eastern  or  Arabian 
side.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Arabic  word  here  used  for  Wall 
is  “ Sura,” 4 an  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  “ Shur.” 

From  the  statement  of  Diodorus,  the  Wall  would  seem  to  have 
run  from  Pelusium  to  Heliopolis;  and  this  statement  has  been 
accepted  by  most  of  the  modern  historians  of  Egypt.  Birch,  in 

1  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  147 ; also  in  his  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  52. 

2  ’E telxige  tie  ml  ryv  tt pog  avaTolag  vemvoav  irlevpav  Trjg  Alyvirrov  tv  pog  Tag  arro  ryg 
'Zvpiag  ml  ryg  ’A pa/3'iag  kp^oTidg,  ano  DtjTiovolov  pe^pio  ‘KTuovTrdfeug,  did  ryg  kpfjuov, 
to  urjKog  exl  GTaSiovg  %iNiovg  ml  nevTamaiovg.  ( Bibl . Hist.,  I.,  57.) 

3  In  his  Historia  Anteislamica,  p.  102  f.  4 


50 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


adopting  it,  would  identify  the  “Sesoosis”  of  Diodorus  with 
Raineses  II.,  of  whom  he  says  : “ On  the  eastern  side  of  Egypt  he 
finished  a great  Wall,  commenced  by  his  father  Seti,  from  Pelu- 
sium  to  Heliopolis,  as  a bulwark  against  the  Asiatics.”  1 

Graetz2  and  Rawlinson3  also  accept  the  Wall  limits  as  given  by 
Diodorus.  But  Abulfeda  extends  the  line  of  Wall  very  greatly, 
and  Wilkinson  seems  inclined  to  a similar  view,  which  he  would 
sustain  out  of  the  facts  of  his  own  observing.  He  says  explicitly : 
“ That  such  a Wall  was  actually  made  by  one  of  the  Egyptian 
monarchs,  we  have  positive  proof  from  the  vestiges  which  remain 
in  different  parts  of  the  valley.  It  was  not  confined  to  Lower 
Egypt,  or  to  the  east  of  the  Delta  from  Pelusium  to  Heliopolis,  but 
continued  to  the  Ethiopian  frontier  at  Syene ; and  though  the 
increase  of  the  alluvial  deposit  has  almost  concealed  it  in  the  low 
lands  overflowed  during  the  inundation  of  the  waters  of  the  Nile, 
it  is  traced  in  many  of  the  higher  parts,  especially  when  founded 
upon  the  rocky  eminences  bordering  the  river.  The  modern 
Egyptians  have  several  idle  legends  respecting  this  Wall,  some  of 
which  ascribe  it  to  a king,  or  rather  to  a queen,  anxious  to  prevent 
an  obnoxious  stranger  from  intruding  on  the  retirement  of  her 
beautiful  daughter  : and  the  name  applied  to  it  is  Gisr  el  Agoos, 
or  ‘ the  Old  Woman’s  Dyke.’4  It  is  of  crude  brick  : the  principal 
portion  that  remains  may  be  seen  at  Gebel  e’  Tayr,  a little  below 
Minyeh ; and  I have  even  traced  small  fragments  of  the  same 
kind  of  building  on  the  western  side  of  the  valley,  particularly  in 
the  Fyoom.” 5 

Sharpe,6  on  the  other  hand,  referring  to  Procopius,  tells  of  the 
remains  “ of  the  Roman  Wall,”  built  in  the  days  of  Diocletian  as 

1 Egypt,  p.  125.  2Gesch.  der  Juden,  I.,  378-390.  3 Hist,  of  Anc.  Egypt,  II.,  325/. 

4 Gisr  commonly  means  “bridge,”  or  “causeway,”  or  “threshold,”  rather  than 

“dyke,” as  is  shown  farther  on  in  this  ’work.  See  Index,  s.  v.  “Gisr.” 

5 Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egyptians,  I.,  71.  See  also  his  Egypt  and  Thebes,  p.  368. 

6  Hist,  of  Egypt,  Chap.  XVII.,  § 39. 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


51 


a protection  against  the  inroads  of  troublesome  neighbors  from  the 
south  of  Egypt ; remains  which  are  still  to  be  seen  at  the  east  of 
the  Nile,  north  of  the  first  cataract.  And  it  is  certainly  not  un- 
fair to  suppose  that  different  portions  of  the  Egyptian  border  were 
walled  at  different  times  against  different  enemies,  and  that  the 
remains  of  any  and  all  of  these  different  walls  are  liable  to  be  con- 
nected in  the  minds  of  the  Arabs,  and  even  in  the  minds  of 
intelligent  discoverers,  with  the  traditions  and  history  of  the  Great 
Wall  which  was  “ before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward  Assyria.”  1 

Certainly  if  one  were  to  judge  of  the  natural  probabilities  of 
the  case,  a Wall  of  this  kind  built  for  the  protection  of  Egypt 
against  Eastern  invaders  would  run  from  the  Mediterranean  (say 
at  Pelusium,  or  east  of  it)  to  what  we  now  call  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
rather  than  directly  to  a point  as  far  westward  as  Heliopolis.  But 
the  distance  named  by  Diodorus  as  the  length  of  the  Wall  is  great 
enough  to  admit  of  a Avail  from  Pelusium  to  the  Gulf  of  Suez 
(across  the  Isthmus),  and  thence  omvard  to  Heliopolis ; in  other 
Avords,  from  Pelusium  to  Heliopolis,  by  way  of  the  Gulf.  Such  a 
line  would  doubly  fortify  the  Egyptian  frontier.  Inasmuch  as  the 
Great  Canal,2  built,  like  the  Great  Wall,  by  the  ambiguous 
Sesostris,3  had  its  eastern  entrance  into  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  with  a 

1 Gen.  25:  18. 

2 For  facts  as  to  the  Great  Canal,  its  route  and  its  building,  see  “ Memoire  sur  le 
Canal  des  deux  Mers,”  in  the  Napoleonic  Description  de  VEgypte , Yol.  I.,  pp.  21- 
186 ; Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egyptians,  I.,  47-49,  110,  with  references  to  Strabo,  Pliny, 
and  Aristotle ; Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  310-323  ; Ebers’s  JEgypt.  u.  die  Buck. 
Mose's,  p.  80  ; Glynn’s  paper  “On  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  and  the  Canals  of  Egypt,” 
with  the  discussion  following  it,  in  Proceedings  of  Inst,  of  Civil  Engineers  of  Great 
Britain,  Yol.  X.  (1851),  pp.  369-375  ; Ritt’s  Hist,  de  I’Isthm.  de  Suez,  pp.  14-41;  etc. 

3 The  Great  Canal  was  certainly  cut  as  early  as  the  days  of  Setee  I.,  of  the  Nine- 
teenth Dynasty;  Bunsen  {Egypt's  Place  in  Univ.  Hist.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  299)  claims  that 
the  canal -building  was  begun  as  early  as  the  Twelfth  Dynasty,  by  the  kings  who 
contributed  to  the  “Sesostris”  composition;  and  Ebers  {Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  19)  says: 
“ From  the  appearance  of  fortresses  and  the  Great  Wall  of  Egypt,  it  is  supposed  that 
an  old  canal  existed  as  early  as  the  Fifth  Dynasty.” 


52 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


branch  running  northerly  toward  Pelusium,  it  would  be  a most 
unreasonable  supposition  that  the  Great  Wall  was  diagonally 
across  the  Great  Canal,  midway  of  its  course ; or  that  the  Wall 
built  for  the  protection  of  Egypt  should  leave  the  Canal,  with  all 
its  importance  as  a means  of  communication  and  transportation, 
unprotected,  and  at  the  mercy  of  the  enemy  against  whom  the 
Wall  was  upreared.  Such  a reflection  on  the  engineering  ability 
and  the  military  foresight  of  a people  like  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
is  not  to  be  seriously  thought  of.  The  Great  Wall  must  have 
touched  the  head  of  the  Heroopolitan  Gulf  at  the  eastward  of  the 
Great  Canal,  in  whatsoever  direction  it  may  have  run  after  that. 

As  to  the  confusion  concerning  the  period  of  the  original  build- 
ing of  the  Wall,  a plausible  explanation  at  once  suggests  itself. 
At  least  as  early  as  the  Twelfth  Dynasty — prior  to  the  Hykshos 
domination — this  Wall  was  erected  to  guard  against  incursions 
from  the  East.  But,  during  the  Hykshos  supremacy  it  was  prob- 
ably leveled  to  the  ground,  or  suffered  to  fall  into  disuse  and 
decay ; because  it  was  in  the  direction  of  the  friends  rather  than 
the  foes  of  the  ruling  power  of  Egypt.1  On  the  expulsion  of  the 
Hykshos,  however,  this  Wall  would  hardly  fail  to  be  rebuilt  at 
once,  and  its  defenses  strengthened,  in  order  to  keep  out  the 
dreaded  enemies  from  the  East.  The  rebuilding  of  the  Wall 
would,  as  a matter  of  course,  be  claimed  as  its  original  building. 
That  was  the  way  of  Egyptian  kings.2 

Another  element  of  confusion,  which  is  also  an  added  explana- 
tion of  the  twofold  origin  of  the  Wall,  is  found  in  the  ambiguity 

1 Yet  Manetho,  as  quoted  in  Josephus’s  Against  Apion , Book  I.,  $ 14,  tells  of  a 
line  of  defenses  erected  by  a Hykshos  king  along  his  eastern  border  “ for  fear  of  an 
invasion  from  the  Assyrians.”  This,  however,  may  have  been  a temporary  rebuild- 
ing of  the  before  neglected  Great  Wall. 

2 Thus,  for  example,  the  temple  of  Osiris  at  Abydos,  built  by  King  Usertesen  I., 
of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty,  was  rebuilt  by  Setee  I.  and  Rameses  II.  of  the  Nineteenth 
Dynasty,  and  their  names  are  recorded  with  much  boastfulness,  as  its  real  builders. 
(See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  162  /.,  and  II.,  27-29.) 


53 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 

attaching  to  the  identity  of  the  king  mentioned  by  Diodorus  as  its 
builder.  Manetho  gives  the  name  of  “ Sesostris,”  as  a king  in  the 
Twelfth  Dynasty ; 1 yet  the  Sesostris  referred  to  by  Diodorus,  and 
by  Greek  historians  before  and  after  him,  has  been  commonly 
understood  to  be  Raineses  II.,  with  more  or  less  of  the  added 
glory  of  his  immediate  predecessors.  Birch2  and  Brugsch3  would 
identify  Rameses  II.  with  Sesostris.  Villiers  Stuart4  prefers  an 
identification  with  Rameses  III.  Lenormant5  thinks  that  the 
story  of  Sesostris  was  a growth  rather  than  a history,  a traditional 
composition  rather  than  an  individual  character  ; that  “ a legend 
gradually  formed  in  the  course  of  ages,  attributing  to  one  person 
all  the  exploits  of  the  conquerors  and  warlike  princes  of  Egypt, 
both  of  Thothmes  and  Seti,  as  well  as  of  the  various  Rameses,  and 
magnifying  these  exploits  by  extending  them  to  every  known 
country,  as  legends  always  do.”  Wilkinson 6 is  more  specific  in  a 
plausible  explanation  of  the  confusion  over  Sesostris.  “ I . . . . 
suppose,”  he  says,  “ that  Sesostris  was  an  ancient  king  famed  for 
his  exploits,  and  the  hero  of  early  Egyptian  history  ; but  that 
after  Rameses  had  surpassed  them  and  become  the  favorite  of  his 
country,  the  renown  and  name  of  the  former  monarch  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  more  conspicuous  hero  of  a later  age.”  Bunsen 7 even 
attempts  to  show  who  were  the  former  monarchs  whose  exploits 
gave  the  start  to  the  story  of  “ Sesostris.”  He  would  find  them  in 

1 See  “ Dynasties  of  Manetho,”  quoted  in  Cory’s  Ancient  Fragments , p.  117. 

2 “ Sesostris  is  Rameses  II.  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty.”  (Birch  in  Wilkinson’s 
Anc.  Egyptians , I.,  71,  note.) 

3 In  his  History  of  Egypt  (II.,  35)  Brugsch  says  of  Rameses  II. : “ This  is  . . . the 
Sethosis  who  is  also  called  Ramesses  of  the  Manethonian  record,  and  the  renowned 
legendary  conqueror  Sesotris  of  the  Greek  historians.” 

4 “ Rameses  the  Third  was  also  a mighty  conqueror,  and  as  he  lived  nearer  the 
commencement  of  Greek  history,  he  was  better  known  to  the  Greeks,  and  was  in 

fact  their  Sesostris.”  {Nile  Gleanings,  p.  243.) 

s Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  I.,  246.  6 Anc.  Egyptians,  I.,  44. 

7 Egypt's  Place  in  Univ.  Hist.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  282-304. 


54 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


“ two  great  kings  of  the  Old  Empire : ” Amenemhat  II.  and 
Usertesen  II. ; called  by  Manetho,  Sesortosis  II.  and  Sesortosis  III. 
Of  the  first  named  of  these  two  kings,  Bunsen  says : “ In 

Manetho’s  lists  there  is  this  remarkable  notice  annexed  to  the 
second  Sesortosis,  that  ‘ he  is  the  real  Sesostris/  the  great  con- 
queror ; the  lists,  indeed,  never  mention  him  by  any  other  name.” 
But  Bunsen  adds,  that  it  is  the  third  Sesortosis  whom  the  monu- 
ments represent  as  the  great  hero,  and  to  whom  succeeding  genera- 
tions paid  divine  honors  as  next  to  Osiris.  Moreover,  Bunsen 
refers  to  a still  earlier  Egyptian  hero,  of  the  Third  Dynasty,  called 
Sesostris,  by  Aristotle.  In  view  of  all  this  confusion  over  the  per- 
sonality and  the  period  of  the  hero  Sesostris,  it  cannot  be  deemed 
strange  that  such  undertakings  as  the  Great  Wall  and  the  Great 
Canal  should  be  credited  to  Setee  I.  and  Rameses  II.,  who  clearly 
had  something  to  do  with  them,  when  in  reality  the  work  on  them 
had  been  begun  by  some  of  the  far  earlier  component  elements  of  the 
Sesostrian  character — which  these  later  kings  would  fain  monopolize. 

But  apart  from  all  seeming  or  real  discrepancies  concerning  the 
date  of  its  building,  or  the  precise  direction  and  extent  of  its  line, 
the  Great  Wall  itself  is  an  indisputable,  positive  fact.  And  that 
its  northern  terminus  was  at  or  near  Pelusium  seems  equally  clear.1 
It  is  therefore  fair  to  suppose  that  this  frontier  fortifying 
Wall  was  known  to  various  peoples  by  their  own  word  for  such 
a Wall  (“  Anbu,”  “ Shur,”  “ Gerrha,”  “Sura”),  rather-  than 
by  one  proper  name  accepted  alike  in  all  languages.  Nor  is  it 
unlikely  that  the  northernmost  flank-fortress  of  this  Wall  was 
known  as  the  Wall-fortress,  by  pre-eminence  in  that  direc- 
tion. Thus  Ptolemy 2 makes  mention  of  “ Gerrhon  horion  ” 3 — 

1 Ebers  ( JEgypt . u.  die  Bitch.  Hose's,  pp.  82-84)  quotes  from  Lepsius  ( Monatsher . 
der  7c.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Berlin , Mai,  1866)  to  show  that  the  latter 
found  unmistakable  ruins  of  this  Wall  below  Pelusium ; and  he  also  shows  that 
traces  were  found  along  the  line  of  the  Suez  Canal,  during  the  cutting  of  that  work. 

2 Geog.,  Lib.  IV.,  Cap.  5.  3 Teppov  opiov. 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


55 


the  Boundary- Wall — locating  it  at  a short  distance  eastward  of 
Pelusium. 

Josephus  seems  to  have  the  stretch  of  the  Great  Wall  in  mind 
when  he  repeats  the  story  of  Saul’s  triumph  over  the  Amalekites, 
as  given  in  1 Samuel  15:7:  “ And  Saul  smote  the  Amalekites 
from  Havilah  until  thou  comest  to  Shur  [the  Wall]  that  is  over 
against  Egypt.”  Josephus,  paraphrasing  this  narration,  tells  of 
the  time  when  “ Saul  had  conquered  all  these  Amalekites  [up  to 
Shur,  or  the  Wall]  that  reached  from  Pelusium  of  Egypt  to  the 
Red  Sea.”  1 Here  Josephus  indicates  the  line  of  the  Wall  [called 
Shur  in  the  Hebrew  text]  just  as  the  fullest  light  of  the  present 
shows  it  to  have  been.  Yet,  singularly  enough,  many  careful 
scholars,  missing  the  true  meaning  of  “ Shur,”  have  supposed  that 
Josephus  would  identify  Pelusium  with  Shur,  and  have  accepted 
this  identification  accordingly,  or  have  argued  against  it.2  There  is 
no  more  reason,  however,  for  claiming  that  Josephus  identified 
Pelusium  with  Shur,  than  that  he  identified  the  Red  Sea,  or  the 
Gulf  of  Suez,  with  Shur.  Shur,  or  the  Wall,  ran  from  Pelusium 
to  the  Gulf  of  Suez ; and  that  fact  seems  to  have  been  recognized 
by  Josephus.3  It  had  not  been  forgotten  in  his  day. 

1 Antiq.,  Bk.  VI.,  Chap.  7,  £ 3. 

2 See  Michaelis,  on  Abulfeda’s  Tabula  HZgypti,  note  141 ; Gesenius’s  Thesaur.,  s.  v. 
“ Shur ; ” Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  13 ; Sharpe’s  Bevision,  at  Gen.  25 : 18 ; 
Speaker’s  Com.,  and  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  at  Gen.  16 : 7. 

3 A disputed — and  at  the  best  an  obscure — reading  of  the  Septuagint,  at  a similar 
reference  to  “ Shur,”  in  1 Sam.  27 : 8,  possibly  has  some  light  thrown  on  it  by  this 
view  of  the  Great  Wall  of  Egypt.  As  we  have  it  in  our  English  version,  the 
Amalekites  and  others  “ were  of  old  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  as  thou  goest  to 
Shur,  even  unto  the  land  of  Egypt.”  The  critical  reading  of  the  Septuagint  (as 
indicated  by  Tischendorf  and  others)  just  here  is  : cnro  avrjKovruv  rj  and  TeXayipnvp 
TETeixt-apevuv;  apo  anekonton  he  apo  Gelampsour  teteichismenon ; which  gives  no 
clear  meaning.  But  the  common  reading  of  the  Septuagint  is : ’ y and  Te?.a/ucovp  and 
avrjKovrov  Tereixiopevav;  he  apo  Gelamsour  apo  anekonton  teteichismenon;  “the 
[land]  from  Gelamsour,  from  the  fortifications  belonging  [or,  possibly,  reaching] 
thereto.”  It  would  look  as  if  the  LXX.  had  added  a gloss,  to  indicate  that  the 


56 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


It  would  even  seem  that  the  very  name  of  ancient  Egypt,  as 
given  to  it  by  the  eastern  nations  beyond  it,  may  have  had  a refer- 
ence to  the  Great  Wall  which  shut  it  in  from  the  eastward. 
Ebers,  and  Brugsch,  and  Birch,  and  Fiirst,  have  shown1  that  the 
name  by  which  Egypt  is  called  in  the  language  of  the  Assyrians 
and  the  Persians,  as  well  as  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  and  the 
modern  Arabs  (all  of  their  records  dating  later  than  the  building 
of  the  Great  Wall),  is  in  various  shapings  of  “an  original  form 
which  consisted  of  the  three  letters  M-z-r ; ” a form  which  appears  in 
the  Hebrew  as  in  the  singular  Mazor  (nto),2  and  as,  in  the  dual, 
Mizraim  (onvp)3 — the  Two  Egypts,  Upper  and  Lower.  The  idea 
common  to  the  various  designations  is  an  “ enclosure,”  a “ fortress,” 
a “ defense,”  a “ wall,”  a “ limit,”  or  a “ boundary.” 4 This  desig- 
nation “ was  originally  applied  only  to  a certain  definite  part  of 
Egypt  in  the  east  of  the  Delta;”  the  very  portion  which  was 

bounds  were  up  to  the  old  fortified  line  of  Egypt.  Nor  is  it  improbable  that  the 
Gelamsour  was  a compound,  through  an  error  in  transcribing,  of  ’olam  and  Shur,  of 
the  Hebrew  text. 

1 See  Ebers’s  JEgypt.  u.  die  Buck.  Hose's  (with  references  to  Spiegel,  Rawlinson, 
Lerch,  etc.),  pp.  85-90;  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  18,  231,  II.,  237-383;  Birch’s 
Egypt , Introduction,  p.  7 ; Furst’s  Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  “ Mitsraim  ” (with  references  to 
Herodotus,  Diodorus,  Strabo,  Istachri,  Bochart,  and  Champollion).  Fiirst  even  sug- 
gests that  the  name  “ Egypt,”  or  “ iEgyptos”  \_AlyvKTof],  may  have  a connection  with 
the  Sanskrit  “ aguptas,”  “ fortified.”  This  suggestion  gives  a new  force  to  the  state- 
ment of  Manetho  (see  Josephus  Against  Apion , Book  I.)  that  JEgyptus  was  another 
name  of  Sethosis,  or  Sesostris,  and  that  from  him  the  name  was  given  to  the  country. 
Thus,  Sesostris,  the  Fortifier,  or  the  Waller,  of  ACgypt,  gave  the  name  the  Fortified 
Land,  or  the  Walled  Land,  to  the  Land  of  Egypt;  or,  rather,  the  Land  he  had 
Walled  gave  its  name  to  him  as  the  Waller. 

2 2 Kin'gs  19 : 24,  and  Isa.  37  : 25,  translated  in  A.  V.  “ besieged  places ; ” Isa. 
19  : 6,  translated  “ defense ; ” in  all  these  places  probably  meaning  Lower  Egypt. 
(See  Gesenius’s  Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  “ Matsor.”) 

3 Old  Testament,  passim , 

4 See  Gesenius,  Fiirst,  Ebers,  and  Brugsch,  as  above.  See  also  Speaker's  Com.  at 
Gen.  10 : 6.  Sayce,  in  a note  to  Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham,  p.  213,  says : “ Matsor, 

‘ fortified  place,’  or  ‘ fortification ; ’ hence  Mitsraim — ‘ the  two  defenses,’  Upper  and 
Lower  Egypt.” 


THE  WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WALL. 


57 


shut  in,  fortified,  limited,  bounded,  by  the  Great  Wall  from  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  to  the  Heroopolitan  Gulf.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  Assyrians  called  by  the  name  “ Muzur”  or  the  Walled  or 
Fortified  Land,  that  region  which  was  immediately  behind  the 
Great  Wall  that  was  “ before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward  Assy- 
ria/7 1 Sayce  is  positive  on  this  point.  He  says : 2 “ Egypt  was 
considered  to  belong  to  Asia  rather  than  to  Africa.  From  its 
division  into  Upper  and  Lower  came  the  name  Mizraim/the  Two 
Matsors,7  Matsor  being  properly  ‘ the  Fortification 7 which  defended 
the  country  on  the  Asiatic  side.77 

With  the  Great  Wall  standing  there  across  the  entrance  of 
Lower  Egypt,  as  a barrier  and  a landmark  between  the  Delta 
and  the  Desert,  it  follows  almost  as  a matter  of  course  that 
the  region  on  either  side  of  the  Wall  should  bear  the  name  of 
the  Wall : on  the  western  side  was  the  Land  of  Mazor,  • the 
Land  Walled  in  ; on  the  eastern  side  was  the  Wilderness  of  Shur, 
the  Wilderness  Walled  out.  Hence,  it  comes  to  pass,  that  the 
desert  country  eastward  of  Lower  Egypt  is  known  in  the  Bible 
as  the  Wilderness  of  Shur.3  And  this  understanding  of  the 
term  corresponds  with  the  references  to  this  wilderness  in  the 
Chaldaic  Paraphrase, 4 and  in  the  Talmud,5  as  also  with  the 

1 Gen.  25  : 18. 

2 “ The  Ethnology  of  the  Bible,”  and  “ The  Bible  and  the  Monuments,”  in  The 
Queen’s  Printers’  Aids  to  Student  of  Bible , pp.  64,  66. 

3 Exod.  15 : 22. 

4 The  Targum  of  Onkelos,  at  Exodus  15:  22,  reads:  “Wilderness  of  Khagra” 
('fcOiny  Khagra  is  a Chaldaic  noun  derived  from  the  same  root  as  the  Hebrew  verb 
Khaghar  pjn),  “ to  bind  firmly,”  “ to  enclose,”  “ to  gird  about.”  Compare  the 
Hebrew  Khaghor  pVin),  “a  girdle,”  and  Khaghor  pUn),  “begirt.” 

5 “ In  the  Talmud,  the  word  Shur  is  translated  by  Coub  [30  Koobh],  and  also  by 
Halougah ; the  Targum  of  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  has  also  this  last  name.  The  Coub 
of  the  Talmud  is  without  doubt  identical  with  the  country  of  the  same  name  men- 
tioned by  Ezekiel  (30:  5)  [Chub],  and  consequently  it  is  situated  between  Egypt 
and  Palestine,  toward  the  southwest  [from  Palestine].  The  Talmud  gives  to  this 
desert  nine  hundred  square  parsa.  The  modern  interpreters  of  the  Bible  say,  that 


58 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


modern  Arabic  identification  of  the  Desert  of  Shur  as  the  Desert 
el-Jifar.1 

This  recognizing  of  the  Great  Wall  which  was  before  Egypt  as 
the  Shur  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  throws  a new  light  on  the 
story  of  the  exodus.  Indeed  the  clue  which  is  hereby  given  to  the 
main  facts  of  the  route  of  that  exodus  is  too  important  to  be  over- 
looked, or  to  be  passed  by  with  a hasty  examination ; yet  it  in- 
volves quite  too  much  to  be  fittingly  considered  in  the  course  of 
this  study  of  the  location  of  Kadesh.  It  is,  therefore,  relegated  to 
a supplemental  place  in  this  volume,  in  order  to  its  fuller  and 
separate  treatment  in  all  its  varied  bearings.2 


5.  A TYPICAL  TRAINING  PLACE. 

To  find  that  Shur  was  the  great  Boundary  Wall  of  Egypt, 
desert  ward,  and  that  Kadesh  was  a sanctuary-stronghold  on  the 
desert-border  of  the  Land  of  Canaan,  is  to  find  a deeper  and  a 
pregnant  meaning  in  the  inspired  record,  that  “ Abraham 

to  traverse  the  desert  of  Shur  a journey  of  seven  days  is  required.  Halou§ah  is  prob- 
ably the  village  of  Elusa  [or,  Khalusa],  in  Palestina  Tertia.  Ptolemy  counts  it  as 
an  Idumean  city.  We  have  seen  that  the  desert  of  Shur  extends  from  Egypt  to  the 
southwest  of  Palestine ; one  can  then  render  Shur  by  Halouyah  in  speaking  of  the 
side  [of  the  desert]  from  the  town  where  one  would  reach  it  in  going  out  from 
Hebron  as  did  Hagar.”  (Neubauer,  Geog.  du  Talmud,  p.  409/.) 

1 Kurtz  {Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  13)  says  “ that  the  desert  of  Shur  was  the  entire 
tract  of  desert  by  which  Egypt  was  bounded  on  the  east.  . . . Saadias  renders  Shur 
‘ el  Jifar.’  But  by  the  desert  of  el  Jifar  the  modern  Arabians  understand  the  tract 
which  lies  between  Egypt  and  the  more  elevated  desert  of  Et-Tih,  and  stretches  from 
the  Mediterranean  to  the  Gulf  of  Suez.”  On  this  point,  see  a quotation  from  Tuch, 
farther  on  in  this  work.  For  reference  to  it  see  Index,  s.  v.  “Paran.”  Niebuhr 
(Beschr.  von  Ar alien,  p.  400)  suggests  that  the  name  Toor,  “ the  well-known  haven  on 
the  western  arm  of  the  Gulf”  of  Suez,  is  a reminiscence  of  “ Shur.”  The  possibility 
of  this  would  seem  to  be  in  the  Egyptian  name  “Tar,”  a “fortress,”  being  con- 
founded in  the  lapse  of  time  with  the  Arabic  “ Toor,”  a “ mountain.”  This  would 
show  vestiges  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wall  from  Elusa  to  Toor. 

2 It  will  be  found  from  page  325  to  page  431. 


A TYPICAL  TRAINING-PLACE . 


59 


dwelled  [or  tarried *]  between  Kadesh  and  Shur.”  2 That  state- 
ment no  longer  stands  as  a casual  mention  of  a stopping-place  in 
the  patriarch’s  journey ings  between  two  ancient  cities,  as  so  many 
have  understood  it ; but  it  is  uplifted  as  a typical,  or  illustrative, 
lesson  out  of  his  divinely  directed  experience,  for  the  instruction 
and  the  cheer  of  all  his  descendants — by  generation  or  by  grace.3 

In  the  sacred  story  there  are  three  great  typical  lands  : Egypt, 
Arabia,  Canaan.  Egypt  is  the  Land  of  Bondage ; 4 Arabia  is  the 
Land  of  Training ; 5 Canaan  is  the  Land  of  Best.6  He  who  would 
pass  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  must  needs  go  through  Arabia.  Shur 
is  the  Wall  that  separates  Egypt  from  Arabia  on  the  one  side. 
Kadesh  is  the  sanctuary-stronghold  that  marks  the  boundary-line 
between  Canaan  and  Arabia  on  the  other  side.  To  tarry  “ between 
Kadesh  and  Shur,”  is  to  wait  in  Arabia  between  Egypt  and 
Canaan ; is  to  remain  in  the  Land  of  Training,  between  the  Land 
of  Bondage  and  the  Land  of  Best. 

if,  as  we  may  well  suppose,  the  story  of  Abraham  was  recorded 
by  Moses  during  the  long  years  of  the  Israelites’  tarry  in  the 
wilderness,7  there  was  a peculiar  fitness  and  force  in  this  reference 
to  the  tarry  of  Abraham  in  that  same  region,  in  the  application  of 
its  lessons  to  the  Israelites  in  their  experience  and  needs.  They 
had  been  brought  out  of  Egypt,  the  Walled  Land  of  Bondage,  in 

1 Comp.  Gen.  20  : 1 ; Gen.  27 : 44 ; Judges  6 : 18  ; 2 Sam.  15  : 29 ; 2 Kings  2: 
2,  4.  6. 

2 Geu.  20 : 1.  3 Gal.  3 : 7-9 ; Kom.  11  : 1-6. 

4 Exod.  13  : 14;  20:  2;  Deut.  5:  6;  6:  12;  8:  14;  13:  5;  Josh.  24:  7;  Judges 
6:8;  2 Kings  18 : 21;  Isa.  19:  1-18;  Ezek.  29:  6-12;  Rev.  11:  8;  etc. 

5 It  was  into  Arabia  that  Moses  was  led,  in  his  training  for  his  work  as  leader  and 
lawgiver,  after  his  dwelling  in  Egypt  (Exod.  2 : 11-22  ; 3 : 1-6).  Elijah  the  prophet 
had  his  training  lessons  there  (1  Kings  19:  1-18).  And  thither  was  Paul  sent  in 
preparation  for  his  work  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  1 : 17).  See  also  Deut. 

8 : 1-6,  15,  16  ; Gal.  4 : 22-26. 

e Exod.  3:  7,8;  Deut.  1 : 7,8,21;  3:  24-28;  6:  3-12;  8:  7-10;  11:  10  15 ; etc. 
Also  Heb.  3 : 8-11,  16-18;  4:  1-11;  etc. 

i Comp.,  e.  g.,  Exod.  17  : 14;  24 : 4 ; 34:  27 ; Num.  33  : 2 ; etc. 


60 


KADESE-BARNEA. 


the  hope  of  a speedy  entrance  into  the  Promised  Land  of  Rest.1 
But  on  reaching  Kadesh-barnea,  the  sanctuary- stronghold  of  the 
border  of  their  expected  inheritance,  they  had  been  turned  back 
into  the  wilderness,2  and  were  now  wearily  passing  their  lives  in  its 
desolateness,  and  under  its  privations.  Their  temptation  was  to 
see  only  the  dark  side  of  such  a lot,  and  to  repine  at  the  divine 
direction  which  permitted  it.  Then  it  was  that  this  story  of 
Abraham  brought  its  needed  lessons  for  their  instruction. 

Abraham  had  been  promised  a possession  in  Canaan.  He  had 
given  up  everything  in  order  to  receive  it.3  But  Abraham  went 
down  into  Egypt,  and  there  even  he  had  wavered  in  his  faith,  and 
had  so  swerved  from  the  truth,  in  order  to  his  own  protection,  as 
to  draw  forth  a rebuke  from  Pharaoh  for  his  lack  of  fearless 
straightforwardness.4  The  baneful  influence  of  the  Land  of  Bond- 
age had  been  felt  even  by  him  who  could  be  called  the  “ Father 
of  the  Faithful,”  5 and  the  “ Friend  of  God.”  6 Abraham  “ went 
up  out  of  Egypt,”  passed  through  the  barriers  of  the  Great  Wall, 
and  entered  again  the  Promised  Land.7  But  he  was  not  yet  fully 
fitted  to  possess  that  land.  He  was  turned  back  from  its  southern 
borders,  for  a period  of  needed  waiting  and  preparing  in  the  Land 
of  Training.8  After  actually  having  a foothold  in  the  Promised 
Land  of  Rest,  he  did  not  at  once  establish  himself  there  for  a per- 
manency. On  the  contrary,  “ Abraham  journeyed  from  thence 
toward  the  South  Country  [the  Negeb],  and  dwelled  [tarried  for  a 
time]  between  Kadesh  and  Shur,  and  sojourned  [literally,  was  a 
stranger]  in  Gerar  ” — which  lay  between  those  typical  landmarks. 

How  this  reminder  must  have  come  home  to  the  Israelites  to 
whom  it  was  first  spoken  by  Moses ! What  a light  it  threw  on 
God’s  dealings  with  themselves ! How  it  swept  away  all  thought  of 

1 Exod.  3 : 13-17 ; 4 : 29-31.  2 Num.  14 : 26-34 ; Deut.  1 : 19-40. 

3 Gen.  12 : 1-7.  4 Gen.  12  : 10-19.  5 Gen.  12 : 13 ; Gal.  3 : 6-9. 

6 Gen.  12 : 2,  3 ; 18 : 17 ; 2 Chron.  20 : 7 ; Isa.  41 : 8 ; James  2 : 23. 
i Gen.  13 : 1-4,  14-18.  8 Gen.  20 : 1. 


GERAR  AND  BERED. 


61 


his  harshness  or  severity  toward  them  ! They  could  not  doubt  God’s 
Jove  for  Abraham.  They  knew  that  Abraham  never  doubted 
that  love.  Yet  Abraham,  their  great  progenitor,  to  whom,  and 
through  whom,  had  come  all  the  promises  which  gave  them  hope 
of  a goodly  inheritance,1  even  he  had  been  compelled  to  pass  a 
period  in  the  Land  of  Training  before  he  finally  had  a permanent 
home  in  the  Land  of  Rest.  He  had  been  a patient  tarrier  “ be- 
tween Kadesh  and  Shur,”  where  they  were  compelled  to  tarry. 
And  as  they  were  called  to  follow  in  the  steps,  and  to  wait  in  the 
training-place,  of  their  great  forerunner,  the  call  to  them  was  to 
let  the  same  mind  be  in  them  which  was  also  in  him ; for  in  the 
darkest  day  of  his  pilgrimage,  as  in  the  brightest,  “ he  believed  in 
the  Lord ; and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness.” 2 

In  this  light  of  the  inspired  statement,  it  would  seem  that 
whatever  uncertainty  there  is  concerning  the  geographical  position 
of  Kadesh,  there  need  be  no  doubt  as  to  its  typical,  or  illustrative, 
signification.  And,  indeed,  this  understanding  of  the  case  makes  it 
clear  that  Kadesh  is  somewhere  along  the  southern  boundary  of 
the  Land  of  Canaan,  on  or  near  the  great  highway  from  Canaan, 
Egypt  ward.  And  this  gives  another  hint  toward  the  fixing  of  its 
site. 

6.  GERAR  AND  BERED. 

Although  the  precise  location  of  Abraham’s  dwelling-place,  as 
he  moved  downward  along  the  great  caravan  route  toward  Egypt, 
and  tarried  between  Hebron  and  the  desert,3  is  not  shown  in  the 
text,  there  are  helps  to  its  indicating.  At  a later  day,  Isaac  seems 
to  have  followed  in  his  father’s  tracks  over  this  same  route,4  and 
to  have  made  similar  stops  in  his  journeying;  for,  as  he  passed 
between  Gerar  and  Beersheba  (two  points  reached  by  father  and  son 

1 Gen.  17 : 1-8 ; Exod.  3 : 15-17.  5 Gen.  15  : 6. 

3Gen.  13:  18;  18:  1;  20:  1.  4Gen.26:l,6. 


62 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


alike,  in  their  dealings  with  the  king  of  the  Philistines),1  Isaac 
reopened  the  wells  of  water  which  his  father  had  digged;  “and  he 
called  their  names  after  the  names  by  which  his  father  had  called 
them.” 2 These  wells  were  obviously  not  in  the  city  of  Gerar — 
then  the  chief  city  of  the  Philistines ; 3 but  in  the  valley,  or  wady, 
of  Gerar,4  and  thence  along  upward,  or  northerly,  toward  Beer- 
sheba.5 

That  the  land  of  the  Philistines  in  the  days  of  Abraham  corre- 
sponded with  the  limits  of  their  possessions  in  the  days  of  Samson 
and  of  David,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose.6  The  route  of 
neither  Abraham  nor  Isaac  would  seem  to  have  been,  at  any  time, 
in  the  direction  of  Gaza ; nor  would  a move  have  been  likely  to 
be  called  upward,  or  northward,7  from  Gerar  to  Beersheba,  if 
Gerar  had  been  near  Gaza — as  it  has  been  the  modern  fashion  to 
look  for  it.8  It  is  probable  that  the  range  of  the  Philistines  in  the 

i Gen.  21 : 22-33 ; 26 : 26-33.  2 Gen.  26 : 6, 16-18.  3 Gen.  10 : 19 ; 20 : 1, 2 ; 26 : 6-8. 

4 Gen.  26 : 17.  5 Gen.  26  : 18-23. 

6 See  Ritter’s  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  30,  374,  430;  Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan,  p.  207/. 

“ There  are  no  grounds  whatever  for  believing  that  the  country  along  the  Mediter- 
ranean in  the  Shephelah  or  Lowland,  which  we  know  to  have  been  inhabited  by  the 
Philistines  from  the  age  of  Joshua  downwards,  was  occupied  by  them  in  the  times  of 
the  patriarchs.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  distinctly  informed  that  not  only  on  Abra- 
ham’s first  arrival  at  Sichem,  and  after  his  return  from  Egypt,  ‘ the  Canaanite  and 
the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the  land  ’ (Gen.  12 : 6 ; 13  : 7),  but  that  this  continued 
to  be  the  case  even  two  hundred  years  later,  in  the  days  of  Jacob  (Gen.  34 : 30).” 

(Wilton’s  The  Negeb,  p.  245/.) 

“ It  [Gerar]  was  of  olde  a distinct  kingdome  from  the  Philistim  satrapies.” 
(Raleigh’s  History  of  the  World,  Part  I.,  Book  II.,  Chap.  10,  $ 2.) 

7 Gen.  26 : 23.  The  Hebrew  word  ^SjT_)  ya’al , would  seem  to  indicate  a northerly, 
certainly  an  upward  direction.  See  Tristram’s  Bible  Places , p.  1/ 

8 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  189;  II.,  43/.;  Rowlands’  letter  in  Williams’s  Holy 
City,  p.  488  ; Van  de  Velde’s  Syrien  u.  Palastina,  II.,  182 ; his  Map  of  the  Holy  Land, 
Sec.  VII.;  Conder’s  Reports,  in  “Pal.  Expl.  Quart  State.,”  July,  1875,  pp.  162-165; 
Thomson’s  South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book),  pp.  196-198;  Kalisch’s  Com.  on  O.  T. ; and 
Alford’s  Genesis,  at  Gen.  20:  1. 

There  are  probable  references  to  Gerar  in  the  Geographical  Lists  of  the  Temple  of 


GERAR  AND  BERED. 


63 


days  of  Abraham  was  along  the  southwestern  borders  of  Canaan, 
desertward  ; including  the  stretch  westerly  of  the  great  caravan 
route  between  Egypt  and  Assyria  already  mentioned,  from  Beer- 
sheba1  on  the  north,  to  Wady  Jeroor,2  or  the  Valley  of  Gerar,  on 
the  south.  These  two  latter  points  are  fairly  identified ; as  is  also 
Rehoboth,3  between  them. 

Karnak  (see  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “Special  Papers,”  pp.  189,  193;  and  Brugsch’s 
Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  392  /).  Gerar  is  also  referred  to  in  several  of  the  early  Christian 
writings  (see  Robinson,  Stewart,  Wilton,  Ritter,  as  above ; and  “ List  of  Metropoli- 
tan, Archiepiscopal,  and  Episcopal  towns  in  the  See  of  Jerusalem,”  in  Appendix  to 
Palmer’s  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  II.,  550  ff.).  But  none  of  these  references  fix  the 
location  of  Gerar,  although  some  of  them  clearly  seem  to  put  it  in  the  desert,  south 
of  Judah.  (See  also  Stark’s  (laza  u.  d.  Pliilist.  Kuste.) 

Reland  ( Palcestina , p.  805)  quotes  Cyril  in  favor  of  the  identification  of  Gerar  at 
Beersheba ; and  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Arabic  Version  (at  Gen.  20  : 1 ; 
26  : 1)  gives  El-Chalutz  (El-Khulasah,  or  Elusa)  for  Gerar.  Hasius  ( Regni  David,  et 
Sal.,  p.  290)  and  Cellarius  ( Geog . Antiq.,  Lib.  III.,  Cap.  13,  p.  498)  locate  Gerar  near 
Beersheba. 

Of  all  the  more  recent  suggested  identifications  of  the  name  Gerar  near  Gaza, 
there  appears  to  be  nothing  more  than  the  natural  designation  of  great  heaps  of  pot- 
tery, as  Umm  el-Jerr&r,  the  Place  of  Water  Pots.  Conder’s  attempt  to  show  that 
this  is  not  the  meaning  in  this  case  is  met  by  Professor  Palmer  in  his  editing  of  the 
“Name  Lists”  (p.  420)  of  the  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.  Yet  “Umm  Jerar”  appears  in 
Baedeker’s  Palestine  and  Syria  (p.  315)  as  “ the  ancient  Gerar ; ” and  Porter  ( Giant 
Cities  of  Bashan,  etc.,  p.  209)  even  claims  to  have  seen  “ the  Valley  of  Gerar”  as  he 
looked  out  toward  the  south  of  Gaza  from  “ Samson’s  Hill.” 

1 See  Reland’s  Palcestina,  pp.  61,  187,  215,  484,  620;  Grove,  in  Smith  -Hacketts 
Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Beersheba;”  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  204  Tristram’s  Land  of 
Israel,  pp.  376-380;  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  386-390;  Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal., 
p.  402/.;  Conder’s  Tent  Work  in  Pal.,  II.,  92-96;  Thomson’s  South.  Pal.  (Land  and 
Book),  pp.  297-299. 

2 Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan,  pp.  207-212 ; Wilton’s  The  Negeb,  Appendix,  pp.  237- 
250 ; Thomson’s  South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book),  p.  198. 

3 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  196-198,  for  important  facts  tending  to  this  identifi- 
cation, although  he  was  hindered  from  accepting  it  by  his  theories  as  to  the  location 
of  Gerar  and  Zephath.  For  reasons  and  opinions  in  its  favor,  see  Williams’s  Holy 
City,  p.  489 ; Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan,  p.  200  /. ; Bonar’s  Des.  of  Sinai,  pp.  313- 
315;  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  I.,  290  /.;  Wilton’s  The  Negeb,  p.  242  /. ; Strauss’s 
Sinai  u.  Golg.,  p.  122;  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  I.,  272  ; Palmer’s  Des.  of 


64 


KADESH-  B ARNE  A. 


Bered  is  not  identified.1  And,  indeed,  it  may  fairly  be  questioned 
whether  it  was  a particular  centre  of  habitation,  rather  than  some 
more  general  region.  It  is  thought  by  some  to  be  another  name 
for  Shur,  or  for  Gerar.2  However  this  may  be,  its  mention  over 
against  Kadesh,  in  the  locating  of  Hagar’s  Well,3  would  seem  to 
place  it  in  the  same  general  direction  as  Shur.4 

Whatever  doubts  are  yet  unsolved  concerning  the  precise  loca- 
tion of  Shur,  and  Gerar,  and  Bered,  enough  is  made  clear  to  show 
that  both  the  Well  of  Hagar  and  the  dwelling-place  of  Abraham 
at  Gerar,  or  on  his  way  to  it,  were  on  the  great  caravan  route 
between  Egypt  and  Syria,  somewhere  between  Beersheba,  on  the 
north,  and  Wady  Jeroor  on  the  south;  and  that  the  site  of  Kadesh 
must  be  sought  eastward  from  their  neighborhood,  as  thus  indi- 


Exod.,  II.,  382-384;  Tristram’s  Bible  Places , p.  13;  Thomson’s  South.  Pal.  (Land 
and  Book),  p.  198. 

1 Yet  “Bered  ” is  one  of  the  places  to  be  found  noted  on  well-nigh  all  the  popular 
maps  of  the  Holy  Land  without  an  interrogation  point ! 

2 See  Fries,  in  Stud.  u.  Krit .,  for  1854,  p.  62 ; and  Grove,  in  Smith-Uackett’s  Bib. 
Die.,  s.  v.  “ Bered.” 

3 For  a proposed  identification  of  Hagar’s  Well — Beer-lahai-roi — at  Moilahi,  see 
Rowlands’s  statement,  in  the  Appendix  to  Williams’s  Holy  City,  p.  489  ff.  This 
identification  is  referred  to  approvingly  by  Ritter,  in  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  432 ; Tuch,  in 
Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1848,  p.  94;  Keil  and  Delitzsch,  in  Bib.  Com.,  I., 
222;  Wilton,  in  The  Negeb,  p.  178  ; Thomson,  in  South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book),  p.  199. 
The  fact  that  Moilahi,  or  Muwaylih,  is  a prominent  watering-station  on  the  caravan 
route  from  Egypt  to  Syria  (as  Beer-lahai-roi  is  declared  to  have  been,  Gen.  16  : 7),  is 
confirmed  by  Robinson  (Bib.  Res.,  I.,  190,  600). 

4 Philo  Judteus  (Liber  de  Profugis,  I.,  577,  Mangev’s  paging),  speaking  of  the 
place  of  Hagar’s  Well,  in  its  figurative  or  symbolic  aspects,  says : “ And  most  suit- 
able indeed  is  the  place  of  this  well,  * between  Kadesh  and  Barad ; ’ for  Barad  on  the 
one  hand  is  interpreted  ‘among  the  profane’  [or,  the  common] ; but  Kadesh,  ‘holy.’ 
For  he  is  on  the  boundary  of  the  holy  and  profane  who  is  fleeing  from  the  evil,  but 
not  yet  fit  to  consort  with  the  perfectly  good.”  This  would  seem  to  indicate  the  tra- 
ditional site  of  Bered  as  toward  Egypt ; for  Egypt  was  the  type  of  the  profane  world, 
as  over  against  Palestine,  or  the  Holy  Land. 


THE  MOUNTAIN  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


65 


cated.  This  corresponds  closely  with  the  indications  in  the  record 
of  Kedor-la’omer’s  march  and  halting-place. 


7.  THE  MOUNTAIN  OF  THE  AMORITES. 

Not  until  the  days  of  the  exodus  does  Kadesh  again  come  into 
sight.  But  the  review-narrative  of  the  journeyings  of  the  Israel- 
ites, in  the  opening  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  already  referred  to,1 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  Kadesh  was  the  objective  point  after 
leaving  Sinai,  or  Horeb,  as  preparatory  to  the  final  move  into 
Canaan.  “When  we  departed  from  Horeb,”  says  Moses,  “we 
went  through  all  that  great  and  terrible  wilderness  which  ye  saw 
[became  acquainted  with]  by  the  Way  of  [in  the  Koad  of]  the 
mountain  [the  hill  country]  of  the  Amorites;  and  we  came  to 
Kadesh- barnea.  And  I said  unto  you,  Ye  are  come  unto  the 
mountain  [the  hill-country]  of  the  Amorites,  which  the  Lord  our 
God  doth  give  unto  us.  Behold  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  set  the 
land  before  thee : go  up  and  possess  it.” 2 

The  Amorites,  or  “Highlanders,”  of  the  Promised  Land,  were 
often  spoken  of  as  its  representative  people.3  They  occupied  the 
hill-country  (afterwards  that  of  Judah  and  Ephraim),  between  the 
Canaanites  proper — or  the  “ Lowlanders  ” 4 — of  the  plains  of  Phi- 
listia  and  Sharon  and  Phoenicia  on  the  west,  and  of  the  valley  of 

1 See  page  2,  supra.  2 Deut.  1 : 19-21. 

3 Gen.  15:  16;  comp.  Num.  14:  45  and  Deut.  1:  44;  Josh.  10:  5;  24:  15;  Judges 

6:  10;  Amos  2:  9,  10.  See  Grove  in  Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “Amorite;” 
also  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  I.,  216;  III.,  86,  284. 

4 The  word  “ Canaan”  is  from  a Hebrew  root  Kan' a (#13)  meaning,  “to  bend  the 
knee,”  or  “ to  be  low.”  It  would  seem  to  be  employed  in  this  primitive  sense  in  the 
Bible  almost  without  exception.  (See  Winer’s  Bibl.  Bealworterb.  and  Smith- 
Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Canaan.”)  But  there  is  a secondary  meaning  of  the  word, 
as  “merchants,”  or  “traffickers.”  (See  Isa.  23:  8;  Hos.  12:  7.)  This  may  have 
grown  out  of  the  fact  that  the  Lowlanders  of  Phoenicia  became  known  as  the  fore- 


66 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


the  Jordan  on  the  east.1  This  hill-country  of  the  Amorites  would 
loom  up  prominently  before  the  eyes  of  those  who  approached 
Canaan  from  the  south.  Traces  of  its  lower  limits  are  even  yet 
found  in  the  names  Dhaygat  el-’Amureen  (the  Ravine  of  the  Amo- 
rites) and  Ras  ’Amir  (the  Highland  Peak,  or  Spur);  the  latter 
just  above  Jebel  Muwaylih ; 2 and  the  former  a few  miles  to  the 
north  and  east  of  it. 

If  then,  Kadesh-barnea  was  (as  would  appear  from  this)  just  at 
the  southern  base  of  the  Amorite  hill-country,  another  indication 
of  its  site  is  secured,  in  addition  to  the  hints  obtained  from  Gene- 
sis. It  must  have  been  under  one  of  the  east  and  west  ranges 
running  across  the  desert;  not  lower  down  than  Jebel  Muwaylih 
(which  is  westward  of  Ras  ’Amir) ; for  at  Kadesh  the  Israelites 

most  traders  and  traffickers  of  the  world ; as  we  now  use  the  term  “ Jew,”  or  “ Yan- 
kee,” to  indicate  the  trading  faculty. 

“The  population  was  broadly  distinguished  into  Canaanites,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Canaan,  or  ‘lowlands,’  and  Amorites,  or  ‘Highlanders.’  Canaan  was  originally 
the  name  of  the  coast  on  which  the  great  trading  cities  of  the  Phoenicians  stood ; but 
long  before  the  time  of  the  Israelitish  invasion,  the  name  had  been  extended  to 
denote  the  dwellers  in  the  plain,  wherever  they  might  be.  Indeed,  passages  like 
Judges  1 : 9 show  that  it  had  been  extended  even  farther,  and  had  come  to  signify 
tribes  which  were  properly  Amorites.  Hence  it  is  that  the  language,  spoken  alike 
by  the  Hebrews  and  the  older  inhabitants  of  the  country,  is  called  ‘ the  language  of 
Canaan  ’ (Isa.  19 : 18).  But  the  earlier  use  of  the  name  also  survived.  Thus,  in 
Isaiah  23 : 11,  it  is  said  of  Tyre  that  ‘ the  Lord  hath  given  a commandment  against 
Canaan,  to  destroy  the  strongholds  thereof,’  where  the  Authorized  Version  has 
mistranslated  ‘merchant-city’  instead  of  Canaan.  . . . The  same  wide  extension 
that  had  been  given  to  the  name  of  Canaanite  was  given  also  to  that  of  Amorite. 
It  is  possible  that  the  title  by  which  the  kingdom  of  Damascus  was  known  to  the 
Assyrians,  Gar-’imirisv,  originally  meant  simply  “the  country  of  the  Amorite.” 
But  the  Amorites,  of  whom  we  chiefly  hear  in  the  Bible,  lived  far  away  in  the 
south,  at  Hebron  and  Jerusalem  (Josh.  10:  5,  6);  at  Hazezon-tamar  (Gen.  14:  7) 
and  Shechem  (Gen.  48 : 22 ; 2 Sam.  21 : 2),  and  even  in  Bashan  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  Jordan  (Deut.  3:  8).  (Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce  in  “The  Sunday  School  Times” 
for  June  23,  1883.) 

1 Num.  13:  29;  Josh.  5:  1;  10:  6. 


2 Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  380. 


PAR  AN  AND  ZIN. 


67 


had  not  yet  entered  the  hill-country  of  the  Amorites ; they  had 
only  come  to  it.  And  again  it  was  evidently  north  of  the  Jebel 
’Araeef  range/  around  the  western  end  of  which  Kedor-la’omer 
swept  northward  from  the  Wilderness  of  Paran1 2  before  he  came 
to  “En-mish pat,  which  is  Kadesh.” 3 But  how  far  west  or  east, 
on  that  hill  boundary-line,  Kadesh  was  located,  demands  farther 
examination. 


8.  PARAN  AND  ZIN. 

In  the  story  of  the  wanderings  it  would  appear,  at  one  time, 
that  Kadesh  was  in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran;4  and  again  that  it 
was  in  the  Wilderness  of  Zin;5  that  it  was  an  eleven  days’  jour- 
ney [or  distance]  from  Horeb  by  the  Way  of  Mount  Seir  [or  by 
the  Mount  Seir  Road]  to  Kadesh-barnea ; 6 and  that  Kadesh  was 
near  the  outer  edge  of  the  possessions  of  Edom.7  What  help,  or 
what  difficulty,  toward  fixing  the  site  of  Kadesh,  is  to  be  found  in 
these  indications? 

The  term  “ Wilderness  of  Paran  ” seems  to  be  used,  in  its  stricter 
sense,  as  including  the  central  and  northern  portion  of  the  desert 
region  between  the  mountains  of  Sinai  and  the  Negeb;  the  district 
now  known  as  the  “Badiyat  et-Teeh  Beny  Israel”  or  the  “ Desert 
of  the  Wanderings  of  the  Children  of  Israel.” 8 In  a larger  sense 

1 See  Robinson’s  statement  quoted  on  page  38,  supra.  2 See  page  22,  supra. 

3 Gen.  14:  7.  4Num.  13:  26.  5Num.  20:  1;  27:  14;  Deut.  32:  15. 

6 Deut.  1:2.  * Num.  20:  14-16. 

8 This  designation  runs  back  in  the  Arabian  historians  as  far  as  we  have  any  track 
of  their  name  for  this  desert.  Abulfeda  (who  wrote  about  the  year  1300)  gives  it  in 
his  Tabula  AZgypti  (p.  1).  In  comment  on  this,  Michaelis  says  in  his  notes:  “ Deser - 
turn,  in  quo  errarunt  Israelite,  AEgypto  proximum,  ita  vocant  Arabes.  Si  quis  sonos 

Arabicos  latine  expressos  cupiat,  hi  sunt:  Tih  Beni  Israel .”  “The  Arabs  so  call 

the  desert  near  Egypt,  in  which  the  Israelites  wandered.  If  any  one  wishes  the 

Arabic  sounds  expressed  in  Latin  letters,  here  they  are : ‘ Teeh  Beny  Israel.’  ” 

Seetzen,  journeying  over  this  desert  in  1807,  wrote:  “ Et-Teeh,  according  to 


68 


KA  DESH-BA  RNEA, 


the  term  may  have  applied  to  the  entire  wilderness  region  of 
which  this  Paran  proper  was  the  centre;  including  the  various 
surrounding  districts  bearing  local  designations,  such  as  the  Wil- 
derness of  Sinai,1  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  the  Wilderness  of  Beer- 
sheba,2  the  Wilderness  of  Ziph,3  the  Wilderness  of  Maon,4  etc. 

Yakoot,  the  renowned  geographer  of  Hamah,  is  the  name  of  the  desert  which  is 
bounded  by  the  Red  Sea,  Palestine,  and  Egypt.  It  is  said  to  be  forty  parasangs  long 
and  broad,  and  to  be  the  place  where  the  Israelites  lived  just  so  many  years  [i.  e.  as 
forty] ; for  which  reason  it  is  also  commonly  called  Et-Teeh  Beny  Israel.’’  (Seet- 
zen’s  Reisen  durch  Syrien , etc.,  III.,  47  /.)  Seetzen  adds  that  the  traditional  name 
doubtless  came  through  Arabic  sources,  as  the  Bed'ween  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
story  of  the  Israelites. 

Burton,  through  the  necessity  laid  on  him  by  his  advocacy  of  another  region  than 
the  Peninsula  of  Sinai  for  the  place  of  the  Law-giving,  has  urged  that  the  reference 
to  “wandering”  in  this  designation  is  not  to  the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites.  At 
first  he  said,  inquiringly,  in  his  Unexplored  Syria  (I.,  28,  note) : “ May  I suggest 
that  this  term,  universally  translated  ‘Desert  of  the  Wanderings,’  may  mean  with 
more  probability  the  ‘Desert  of  the  (general)  Wandering,’  that  is  to  say,  where  men 
wander  and  may  lose  their  way?”  But  from  this  starting-point  of  honest  inquiry  he 
seems  to  wander  and  lose  his  way  in  that  desert  (see  his  Gold-Mines  of  Midian, 
p.  98,  note),  until  at  last,  in  a public  reference  to  the  death  of  Prof.  Palmer  (see 
“ The  Academy,”  for  May  5,  1883),  he  could  speak  sneeringly  of  him,  as  one  who 
“ insisted  upon  translating,  with  the  vulgar,  ‘ Tih  ’ ‘ by  Wilderness  of  the  Wanderings,’ 
when  it  simply  means  a wilderness  where  men  may  wander.”  This  is  noteworthy 
merely  as  an  illustration  of  “subjective  criticism”  on  the  part  of  those  who  would 
conform  the  facts  to  their  own  theories.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  desert  in 
question  was  ever  called  “ Et-Teeh  ” at  an  earlier  date  than  we  know  it  to  have  been 
called  “ Et-Teeh  Beny  Israel.”  If  we  are  to  reject  the  latter  half  of  the  record, 
what  right  have  we  to  retain  the  former  half?  Indeed,  it  is  every  way  probable  that 
the  earlier  designation  was  the  Wilderness  of  Paran ; not  the  Wilderness  et-Teeh — 
either  with  or  without  the  Beny  Israel. 

See  Ritter’s  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  360,  370-376 ; Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  448  ff. ; 
Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  284-289;  Tuch  in  Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  April,  1848,  p.  89/.; 
Kalisch’s  Com.  on.  0.  T.,  at  Gen.  14 : 5,  6. 

i Num.  10 : 12.  2 Comp.  Gen.  21 : 14,  21.  » Comp.  1 Sam.  23  : 14,  24;  25 : 1,  2. 

* “ It  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  Scripture  nomenclature,  if  we 
suppose  these  accessory  wilds  to  be  sometimes  included  under  the  general  name  of 
Wilde'rness  of  Paran.”  (Hayman  in  Smith- Ilackett  Rib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “Paran.”)  See 
a discussion,  with  the  same  conclusion,  in  Wilson’s  Lands  of  the  Bible,  I.,  201  f. 


PAEAN  AND  ZIN. 


69 


This  would  account  for  the  vestige  of  the  name  in  Wady  Fayran1 
in  the  lower  peninsula, — if  it  be  recognized  there;  and  for  the 
reference  to  it  as  in  the  hill-country  of  Judah  in  the  days  of 
David.2  In  this  view  of  the  sweep  of  the  term  “ Paran,”  it  is  by  no 
means  strange  to  find  Kadesh  spoken  of  at  one  time  as  in  the 
general  Wilderness  of  Paran,  and  again  as  in,  or  at,  the  smaller 
district  of  the  Wilderness  of  Zin. 

And  now  where  was  the  Wilderness  of  Zin?  It  is  repeatedly 
referred  to  as  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  and  along  the 
eastern  portion  of  that  border.3  It  cannot  have  been  the  extensive 
depression  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah  known 
as  the  ?Arabah,  and  which  is  a continuation  of  the  basin  of  the 
Jordan,  known  above  the  Dead  Sea  as  the  Ghor ; for  that  is 

“ The  wilderness  of  Paran  seems  to  have  been  a name  taken,  in  a larger  and  [in  a] 
stricter  sense.  In  the  larger  sense  it  seems  to  have  denoted  all  the  desert  and  moun- 
tainous tract  lying  between  the  wilderness  of  Shur  westward  or  toward  Egypt,  and 
Mount  Seir  or  the  land  of  Edom  eastward ; between  the  land  of  Canaan  northwards, 
and  the  Red  Sea  southwards.  ...  In  its  stricter  acceptation  ...  it  is  taken  to  denote 
more  peculiarly  that  part  of  the  desert  of  Stony  Arabia  which  lies  between  Mount 
Sinai  and  Hazeroth  to  the  west,  and  Mount  Seir  to  the  east.”  (Wells’s  Hist.  Geog.  of 
Old  and  New  Test .,  I.,  272.)  Winer  ( Bibl . Realworterb .,  II.,  193)  adopts  this  view, 
in  substance;  also  Kalisch,  as  above.  Comp.  Gen.  21:  20,  21;  Num.  10:  12,  33; 
12:  16. 

1 “In  Wady  Feiran,  . . . there  is  an  evident  reminiscence  of  the  ancient  name 
Paran.  The  Bedawin  are  unable  to  pronounce  the  letter  p,  and  the  word  becoming 
Faran  would  soon  degenerate  with  them  into  Feiran.”  (Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  I., 
20.)  “ Paran  (Num.  10 : 12)  is  no  doubt  the  Wadi  Phiran  [Fayran]  where  formerly 
the  town  of  Pharan  stood.”  (Schwarz’s  Descript.  Geog.  of  Pal.,  p.  212).  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  ( Onomasticon , s.v.  “Pharan”)  seem  to  have  this  place  in  mind,  although, 
by  mistake,  they  locate  it  east  instead  of  west  of  Aila.  See,  also,  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old 
Cov.,  III.,  191  /. 

2 1 Sam.  25 : 1,  2.  Bishop  Harold  Browne,  in  The  Speaker’s  Commentary,  thinks 
that  Paran  should  here  read  Maon ; but  Schwarz  (s.  v.  “ Paran  ”)  understands  from 
Josephus  ( Wars  of  the  Jews,  Book  IV.,  Chap.  IX.)  that  in  the  latter’s  day  “the 
Desert  of  Paran  extended  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Dead  Sea,”  which  would 
include  the  region  of  David’s  retreat. 

3 Num.  34 : 3,  4 ; Josh.  15  : 1,  3. 


70 


KABESH-BARNEA. 


always  spoken  of  by  its  own  distinctive  name,  wliicli  is  also  its 
description.  Robinson  has  made  this  clear.  He  says:1  “The 
Hebrew  word  ; Arabah,  signifying  in  general  4 a desert  plain, 
steppe/  is  applied  with  the  article  ( the  ’Arabah)  directly  as  the 
proper  name  of  the  great  valley  in  question  in  its  whole  length ; 
and  has  come  down  to  us  at  the  present  day  in  the  same  form  in 
Arabic,  el-’ Arabah.  We  find  the  Hebrew  ’Arabah  distinctly 
connected  with  the  Red  Sea  and  Elath ; the  Dead  Sea  itself  is 
called  the  sea  of  the  ’Arabah.  It  extended  also  toward  the  north 
to  the  Lake  of  Tiberias ; and  the  ’Arbotli  (plains)  of  Jericho  and 
Moab  were  parts  of  it.2  The  ’Arabah  of  the  Hebrews,  therefore, 
like  the  Ghor  of  Abulfeda,  was  the  great  valley  in  its  whole  ex- 
tent.” If,  therefore,  the  ’Arabah  had  been  intended,  where  the 
Wilderness  of  Zin  is  mentioned,  it  would  surely  have  been  spoken 
of  as  the  ’Arabah. 

Directly  west  of  the  ’Arabah  is  a wild  mountain  region,  rising 
in  successive  slopes  or  terraces  from  the  ’Arabah  in  one  direc- 
tion, and  from  the  Desert  et-Teeh  in  another.  It  now  bears 
the  name  of  the  Arabs  who  inhabit  it,  and  is  commonly  known 
as  the  ’Azazimeh  mountains,  or  the  ’Azazimat.3  This  is  a dis- 
tinct and  well-defined  local  wilderness,  fully  meeting  the  con- 
ditions of  the  various  references  to  the  Wilderness  of  Zin  in  the 

1 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  186. 

2 “ Heb.  rD-'rn  ha-  Arabah,  in  connection  with  the  Red  Sea  and  Elath,  Deut.  1 : 

1 ; 2 : 8.  As  extending  to  the  Lake  of  Tiberias,  Josh.  12 : 3 ; 2 Sam.  4 : 7 ; 2 Kings 
25  : 4.  ‘Sea  of  the  ’Arabah,  the  Salt  Sea,’  Josh.  3:  16;  12:  3;  Deut.  4:  49. 
‘ Plains  of  Jericho,  Josh.  5,  10;  2 Kings  25:  5.  ‘ Plains  of  Moab,’  i.  e., 

opposite  Jericho,  probably  pastured  by  Moab  though  not  within  its  proper  territory, 
Deut.  34:  1,  8;  Num.  22:  1.  Compare  Gesenius  Lex.  Heb.,  Art.  nmjV’ 

See  also  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  III.,  277  /. ; and  Keil’s  Handbuch  der 
Biblischen  Archaologie,  pp.  28-30. 

3 See  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  “ The  Mountains  of  the  ’Azazimeh,”  Vol.  II., 
Chap.  VII.;  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  176-179;  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III., 

193/. 


AN  ELEVEN  LAYS’  COURSE. 


71 


Bible.1  It  may  fairly  be  identified  as  that  wilderness,  and  again 
as  a portion  of  the  Wilderness  of  Paran  in  its  larger  sense.2  Yet 
its  northeastern  portion  was  probably  in  Edom,  and  it  is  possible 
that  only  the  remainder  was  known  as  Zin. 

This  identification  of  the  Wilderness  of  Zin  would  locate 
Kadesh  somewhere  in  the  ’Azazimeh  mountains ; and  this  corre- 
sponds with  all  previous  indications  of  its  site  in  the  Bible  text. 


9.  AN  ELEVEN  DAYS’  COURSE. 

The  fact  that  Kadesh-barnea  was  “ eleven  days  ” 3 from  Horeb, 
or  Sinai,  does  not  materially  aid  in  its  closer  locating ; for  that 
distance  might  be  calculated  to  a point  farther  east  or  west,  and 
similarly  farther  north  or  south,  within  a considerable  range,  ac- 
cording to  the  particular  route  followed. 

Distances  in  the  East  are  calculated,  almost  universally,  by 
time.  In  illustration  of  this,  when  the  Arabs  saw  me  use  a mili- 
tary field-glass  on  the  desert,  they  asked  me  “ how  many  hours 
ahead  ” I could  see  through  the  glass.  And  an  Arabic  geographer 
even  speaks  of  the  river  Nile  as  extending  “ one  month  in  the 

Palmer  also  calls  this  entire  mountain  district  “ Jebel  el  Magrah,”  describing  it  as 
a plateau,  “ seventy  miles  in  length,  and  from  forty  to  fifty  miles  broad,  commencing 
at  Jebel  ’Araif,  and  extending  northward  by  a series  of  steps  or  terraces  to  within  a 
short  distance  of  Beersheba,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  Wady  er  Rakhmeh.” 
( Des . ofExod.,  II.,  288/.) 

1 Num.  20 : 1 ; 33  : 36 ; 34  : 3,  4 ; Josh.  15 : 1,  3. 

2 “ Zin  must  have  been  a part  of  this  wilderness  [Paran],  namely,  the  northern 
part ; the  district  stretching  out  from  the  Ghor  southwesterly  in  high  rock  masses, 
and  gradually  lowering  itself  near  Jebel  el-Helal.,,  (Winer’s  Bib.  Realworterb .,  s.  v. 
“ Zin.”) 

See,  also,  Hayman,  in  Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Zin  ; ” Tuch,  in  Kitto’s 
Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1848,  p.  90  /. ; Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  III.,  87  ; 
Kalisch’s  Bib.  Com.  on  0.  T.,  at  Gen.  14 : 6 ; Palfrey’s  Led.  on  Jewish  Script,  and 
Antiq.,  I..  417,  note. 


* Deut.  1 : 2. 


72 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


country  of  the  Mussulmans ; ” 1 that  is,  its  course  is  equal  to  a 
month’s  journeying.  They  have  no  thought  of  miles  as  a standard 
of  measurement ; but  rather  of  the  time  needed  to  pass  the  dis- 
tance at  ordinary  rates  of  travel.  It  is  the  caravan  speed  which 
is  the  standard.  On  regular  routes,  there  are  certain  conventional 
day’s  distances,  fixed  by  convenience  of  water  and  camp-grounds. 
These  may  be  “ long-days  ” or  “ short-days,”  but  long  or  short, 
each  counts  for  one.  If  a man  should  post  on  a dromedary  over 
two  of  those  intervals,  or  five  of  them,  between  sun  and  sun,  he 
would  have  made  not  one  day’s  journey,  but  two  or  five  days,  as  it 
would  be  reckoned  in  the  East.  Thus,  for  example,  it  is  said  that 
Muhammad  ’Alee  once  rode  a dromedary  from  Suez  to  Cairo  in 
eleven  hours ; making,  say,  five  days’  journey  in  one  day.  The 
fair  thing  for  a day’s  caravan  journey,  as  an  Oriental  looks  at  it, 
remains  unchanged,  whether  a traveler  hurries  or  lags  in  his  jour- 
neying. Whether  the  Israelites  were  a week,  or  two  years,  in 
making  the  distance  between  Horeb  and  Ivadesh,  the  distance  by 
the  Mount  Seir  Road  was  still  “ eleven  days.”  That  could  not  be 
changed  on  their  account,  or  by  their  action. 

Almost  every  traveler  in  the  East  has  had  illustrations  of  the 
fixedness  of  the  day’s-journey  idea  in  the  minds  of  Orientals. 
When  I was  going  north  from  Jerusalem  I was  particularly  de- 
sirous of  hastening  towards  Nazareth  and  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  for 
special  reasons  ; and  my  Egyptian  dragoman  promised  to  arrange 
accordingly.  I was  willing  to  start  early  and  to  ride  late  for  a 
few  days,  and  yet  to  pay  the  full  price  for  the  time  thus  cut  out  of 
the  usual  course.  But  when  it  came  to  planning  for  the  camping- 
places  for  each  night,  it  actually  seemed  impossible  for  dragoman 
and  muleteers  to  get  it  into  their  heads  that  it  was  practicable  to 
stop  anywhere  else  than  at  the  traditionally  accepted  sites.  They 
were  willing  to  start  at  any  hour  I would  name,  but  when  they 

, i “Abd-er-Kashid  El-Bakouy,”  as  cited  in  Memoirs  Relative  to  Egypt,  p.  436. 


AN  ELEVEN  DAYS'  COURSE. 


73 


came  to  the  old-time  camp-ground  they  must  camp.  At  last  my 
dragoman  entreated  me  to  abandon  the  effort  at  the  impossible. 
In  my  own  country  I could  do  as  I pleased,  he  said ; but  in  their 
country  each  day’s  journey  on  the  roads  they  traveled  had  been 
fixed  by  their  fathers ; and  neither  they  nor  I could  change  it. 
So  I actually  yielded  the  point  because  of  its  seeming  impracti- 
cability, as  they  looked  at  it. 

Had  I wished  to  make  a hurried  run,  day  and  night,  with  a 
single  attendant,  they  could  have  understood  that ; but  for  a cara- 
van to  attempt  to  change  the  division  of  the  road  into  day’s  jour- 
neys— that  was  out  of  the  question.  And  as  it  is  now,  so  it  has 
been,  and  so  it  is  likely  to  be,  in  the  East.  When  Moses  named 
“ eleven  days  ” as  the  stretch  between  Horeb  and  Kadesh-barnea 
by  the  route  they  had  come,  every  Israelite  knew  exactly  what  he 
meant,  whether  we  understand  it  or  not. 

Inasmuch  as  “a  day’s  journey”  is  a conventional  term,  with  its 
enforced  adaptation  to  particular  routes,  it  is  not  easy  to  reduce  it  to 
miles  as  a help  to  its  fixing  ; although  it  would  be  a very  simple 
thing  to  calculate  its  measurement  were  it  once  fixed.  The  average 
of  a day’s  journey  in  the  desert  region  is,  say,  seven  hours’  travel, 
at  the  rate  of  perhaps  two  and  a third  miles  an  hour.1  This 
would  practically  be  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  miles  a day. 

It  would  therefore  appear  that  Kadesh-barnea  was  from,  say,  one 
hundred  and  fifty  to  two  hundred  miles  from  Mount  Sinai,  by  the 
route  here  indicated — “ the  Way  of  Mount  Seir,”  or  “ the  Mount 
Seir  Road  ; ” 2 although,  of  course,  on  this  particular  route,  the 
then  well-known  daily  stretches — because  of  the  suitable  stations 
— may  have  been  exceptionally  “ short-day’s  ” journeyings.  The 

1 For  estimates  of  the  length  of  an  average  day’s  travel  in  the  East,  see  Bosen- 
miiller’s  Bib.  Geog .,  p.  161  /. ; Bobinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  593  /. ; Von  Baumer’s 
Paldstina,  p.  21 ; Lane’s  Thousand  and  One  Nights , Vol.  I.,  p.  116,  note. 

2 The  Hebrew  word  translated  Way  is  derekh  meaning  a “ road,”  a “ beaten 

track,”  a “trodden  course.” 


74 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


correspondence  of  this  measurement  with  the  facts  in  the  case  can 
only  be  tested  when  we  have  fixed  the  site  of  Kadesh,  and  settled 
the  course  of  the  Mount  Seir  Road. 


10.  THE  WAY  OF  MOUNT  SEIR. 

The  natural  roads  of  a country  are  God’s  great  landmarks. 
They  were  fixed  in  the  processes  of  creation ; and  they  remain 
comparatively  unchanged  through  all  the  changes  of  the  centuries. 
The  courses  of  empire  and  the  advances  of  civilization  are  indi- 
cated beforehand,  or  they  can  be  tracked  in  history,  by  the  natural 
highways  along  which  alone  it  would  be  possible  for  them  to 
move.  Hence,  when  we  find  in  the  earliest  book  of  the  Bible  a 
reference  to  an  extended  military  campaign  from  Elam  to  Canaan, 
we  can  see  the  route  which  the  ambitious  chieftain  must  have 
taken ; and  again,  when  we  are  tracking  the  course  of  the  Israelites 
in  their  exodus  or  their  wanderings,  the  specific  references  to  the 
various  roads  which  they  followed,  or  which  they  avoided,  are  the 
best  possible  helps  to  a fixing  of  their  route  beyond  a peradven- 
ture. 

This  important  aid  to  the  elucidation  of  many  of  the  biblical- 
geographical  problems  has  been  generally  overlooked  by  commen- 
tators and  other  scholars  who  have  led  in  the  investigations  of  this 
field  of  knowledge.  It  would  seem  as  if  our  English  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  word  for  “ road,”  or  “ beaten  track,”  or  “ trodden 
course,”  by  the  indefinite  word  “ way,”  had  unconsciously  swayed 
even  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  Hebrew.  We  use  the  term 
“ way  ” 1 as  meaning,  variously,  “ direction,”  “ progression,”  “ dis- 
tance,” “ means,”  and  “ method,”  even  while  we  do  not  rule  out 
from  its  meanings  its  original  signification  of  u path  ” or  “ road.” 
Hence  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  “ Way  of  Shur,”  or  the 


1 See  Webster’s,  Worcester’s,  and  the  Imperial  Dictionaries,  s.  v.,  “ Way.” 


THE  WAY  OF  MOUNT  SEIR. 


75 


“ Way  of  Mount  Seir,”  it  suggests  to  most  readers  the  idea  of  a 
general  direction  given,  or  of  a diversion  from  the  directest  route, 
rather  than  the  indication  of  a well-known  natural  highway,  a 
landmark  for  all  time,  under  its  specific  proper  name  of  the  time 
of  the  Bible’s  writing.1 

In  the  Bible  record  of  the  exodus  and  wanderings  of  the  Israel- 
ites  there  are  at  least  nine  roads  thus  indicated,  as  supplying  a 
skeleton  itinerary  of  the  Israelites’  course.  As  we  may  fairly 
translate,  or  paraphrase  the  names  of  these  roads,  they  are  : The 
Wall  Road,2  the  Philistia  Road,3  the  Red  Sea  Road,4  the  Mount 
Seir  Road,5  the  Amorite  Hill-country  Road,6  the  ’Arabah  Road,7 
the  Edom  Royal  Road,8  the  Moab  Wilderness  Road,9  and  the 
Bashan  Road.10  Again  there  is  the  Road  of  the  Spies,  or  the 
Road  of  the  Athareem 11  which  may  be  the  same  as  one  of  the  roads 
already  named,  but  more  probably  is  a road  which  was  known  to 
the  Israelites  only  by  this  designation. 

In  his  review  of  the  course  of  the  Israelites,  at  the  close  of  their 
forty  years’  wandering,12  Moses  reminds  them  that,  in  their  original 
passing  from  Sinai  to  Kadesh,  they  came  along  two  well-known 
roads  of  the  mountain  and  desert,  which  he  designates  by  the 
specific,  and  the  sufficiently  descriptive  names,  the  “ Way  of  Mount 
Seir,” 13  or  the  “ Mount  Seir  Road,”  and  the  “ Way  of  the  Mountain 
of  the  Amorites,” 14  or  the  “ Amorite  Hill-country  Road.”  Ob- 

1 Even  Grove  (in  Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.,  “ Way”),  while  recognizing  the 
fact  that  derekh  “in  the  majority  of  cases  signifies  ....  an  actual  road,”  is  still  in- 
clined to  see  an  indication  of  direction  in  its  use,  and  to  read  “ the  road  to  the  Red 
Sea,”  rather  than  “ the  Red  Sea  Road.” 

2 Comp.  Gen.  16 : 7 and  Exod.  15 : 22.  This  road,  and  the  two  roads  immediately 
following  it  in  the  above  list,  receive  full  attention  in  their  relations  to  the  exodus, 
in  the  Study  on  the  Route  of  the  Exodus,”  at  the  close  of  this  volume 

3 Exod.  13:  18.  4 Exod.  13:  18;  Deut.  1:  40;  2:  1. 

3  Deut.  1:2.  6 Deut.  1:19.  7 Deut.  2:8.  8 Num.  20 : 17. 

9 Deut.  2:8.  10  Num.  21 : 33.  11  Num.  21 : 1. 

12  See  Deut.  1 : 1-19.  13  Deut.  1:2.  14  Deut.  1 ; 19. 


76 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


viously  these  two  roads  were  not  parallel,  but  the  one  was  supple- 
mental to  the  other  in  the  journeying  of  the  Israelites ; for,  as  the 
text  itself  indicates,  the  Mount  Seir  Road  was  out  from  Horeb, 
and  the  Amorite  Hill-country  Road  was  over  the  wilderness  up  to 
Kadesh-barnea.  Mount  Seir  lay  northeasterly  from  Mount  Sinai, 
while  the  Amorite  Hill-country  lay  northerly.  The  one  road, 
therefore,  would  carry  them  in  a northeasterly  direction  ; and  the 
other,  when  they  turned  toward  it,  would  incline  them  more  or 
less  northwesterly.  To  identify  these  two  roads  is  to  do  much  to- 
ward defining  the  route  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  more  precise 
location  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

At  the  present  time  (as  doubtless  in  the  time  of  Moses),  three 
distinct  roads,  and  only  three,  open  out  from  Mount  Sinai  north- 
ward toward  Palestine,  across  the  wedge-shaped  mountain  range 
that  forms  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Desert  et-Teeh.  These 
roads  are  spoken  of  popularly  as  the  western  road,  the  middle 
road,  and  the  eastern  road.  Robinson  noted  them  carefully  in  his 
day,1  as  other  scholars  have  noted  them  since.  He  said  : “ From 
the  Convent  of  Sinai  ....  three  roads  cross  by  the  three  great 
passes  of  Jebel  et-Tih.  . . . The  easternmost  is  the  road  passing 
by  el -?  Ain,  and  also  by  the  well  eth-Themed,  west  of  the  mountain 
Turf  er-Rukn.  The  middle  road  crosses  the  Tih  by  the  pass  el- 
Mureikhy,  and  the  western  one  by  er-Rakineh  ; ” and  he  adds  to 
his  description  of  them : “ The  above  are  all  the  roads  we  heard  of 
across  the  desert,  from  south  to  north.”  It  is  obvious  that  only 
the  easternmost  of  these  three  roads  could  have  been  fairly  called 
the  “ Mount  Seir  Road ; ” for  that  alone  went  in  the  direction  of 
Mount  Seir ; and  it  would  seem  hardly  less  certain  that  that  road 
would  have  been  so  called. 

A noteworthy  fact  in  connection  with  the  effort  at  identifying 
the  Mount  Seir  Road,  as  taken  by  the  Israelites,  is  the  latest  con- 


1 See  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  198;  also  Note  XXIV.,  p.  601/. 


THE  WA  Y OF  MOUNT  SEIR. 


77 


elusion  of  the  most  experienced  competent  explorer  in  that  desert 
region,  as  to  the  probable  route  of  the  Israelites  northward  from 
Sinai.  The  Rev.  F.  W.  Holland,  of  England,  (who  has  died  since 
this  work  was  begun,1)  had  no  peer  in  familiarity  with  the  Penin- 
sula of  Sinai,  as  a whole.  He  made  five  visits  to  that  region, 
including  the  one  when  he  went  as  the  skilled  guide  of  the  Sinai 
Survey  Expedition,  of  which  Professor  Palmer’s  book  (“  The 
Desert  of  the  Exodus  ” 2)  tells  the  story  so  attractively ; and  he 
journeyed  on  foot,3  over  the  peninsula,  some  five  thousand  miles  in 
all.  Being  wedded  to  no  theory  of  a particular  route  for  the 
Israelites,  he  sought,  on  the  occasion  of  his  fifth  journey,  to  study 
carefully  the  probabilities  of  the  case  in  the  light  of  all  his  obser- 
vations— of  then  and  before — of  “ available  roads  and  passes ” in 
every  district  traversed  by  him.  His  conclusion  was,  that  the 
Israelites  moved  at  first  northward  from  Jebel  Moosa  (Horeb,  or 
Sinai);  then  turned  toward  Wady  ez-Zulaqah,4  which  heads  di- 
rectly toward  Mount  Seir,  and  which  is  on  the  easternmost  of  the 

1 It  was  in  consequence  of  the  enthusiastic  description  of  a journey  in  the  desert 
with  Mr.  Holland,  by  a companion  of  his  with  whom  I crossed  the  Atlantic  in  the 
winter  of  1881,  that  I was  tempted  to  make  the  journey  of  which  this  book  is  a 
result.  On  my  finding  the  wells  of  which  Mr.  Holland  had  been  in  pursuit,  I 
desired  and  hoped  to  communicate  with  him  concerning  them ; but  I was  hardly  at 
my  home  again  before  I learned  of  his  death,  in  Switzerland,  whither  he  had  gone 
just  before  my  reaching  England  on  my  way  back. 

2 See  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod .,  I.,  3 /. 

3 Palmer  {Des.  of  Exod.,  I.,  195)  tells  of  a messenger  coming  from  Suez  to  the 
party  at  Wady  Mukatteb,  bringing  “ a letter  calling  Holland  home.”  The  latter 
“ at  once  proposed  to  obey  the  summons,  and  starting  off  on  foot,  with  no  other  pro- 
vision than  a little  bag  of  flour,  reached  Suez,  a distance  of  some  110  miles,  early  in 
the  afternoon  of  the  third  day  [making  “six  days ” in  “ three ”],  having  walked  the 
last  forty  miles  without  a rest ; thus  performing  a pedestrian  feat  which  has  been 
rarely  equalled,  and  the  memory  of  which  still  lives  in  that  country.” 

4 Holland  calls  this,  the  Wady  Zelleger  (see  Journal  of  Victoria  Institute,  Vol. 
XIV.,  p.  10).  It  appears  as  Wady  ez-Zulakah  in  Robinson’s  itinerary  of  the  “ East 
Route”  {Bib.  Res.,  I.,  602). 


78 


EADESH-BARNEA. 


three  roads  described  by  Robinson  (which,  in  fact,  might  well  be 
called,  from  its  direction,  the  “ Mount  Seir  Road  ”).  After  pass- 
ing El-’Ayn,1  they  turned  northward  again,  as  Holland  thinks, 
into  Wady  el-’Ateeyeh,  and  along  that  wady  to  the  Desert  et- 
Teeh. 

This  road  is  not  the  one  commonly  marked  out  for  the  Israelites, 
as  running  by  ?Ayn  el-Hudhera  to  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah.  That  is 
not  in  the  line  of  any  one  of  the  roads  from  Sinai  to  Canaan,  but 
is  eastward  of  them  all,  and  has  no  trend  toward  Canaan.  It  has, 
in  fact,  been  tracked  out  for  the  purpose  of  taking  in  certain  sup- 
posed identifications  of  stations  named  in  the  route  of  the  Israel- 
ites, rather  than  because  of  its  correspondence  with  any  feasible 
course  likely  to  have  been  taken  by  them  Canaanward.  Holland 
raises  a new  barrier  against  its  acceptance  when  he  says  : 2 “ The 
wadies  along  that  route  are  confined  and  winding,  and  impassable 
for  wagons,  six  of  which,  we  are  told,  had  been  presented  by  the 
princes  of  Mount  Sinai,  for  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.”3  In- 
deed, he  “ finally  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  only  available 
route  for  the  Children  of  Israel  to  have  taken  was  that  by  Wadies 
Zeleiger  [Zulaqah]  and  el-Atiyeh ; ” for  “ these  valleys  afford  the 
most  direct,  the  best  watered,  and  by  far  the  most  easy  course  from 
Jebel  Musa  northward  ; and  by  this  [route]  one  ascends  to  the 
plateau  of  the  Desert  of  Et-Tih  without  any  difficult  pass.”4 
“ Having  once  mounted  to  the  level  of  the  Tih  desert,  a gradual 
descent  across  a succession  of  large  open  plains,  with  abundance  of 
pasturage,  would  lie  before  them,  and  they  would  reach  Jebel 
Mugrah  [Muqrah,  at  the  southern  or  southeastern  border  of  the 
’Azazimeh  mountain  tract — the  “ Wilderness  of  Zin  ”]  without 

1 There  is  a Wady  el-’Ayn  at  the  western  side  of  the  desert,  quite  distinct  from  this 
one  at  the  eastern  side. 

2 Jour,  of  Viet.  Inst.,  Vol.  XIV.,  p.  10.  3Num.  7 : 3-8. 

4 See  Holland’s  report  of  his  latest  journey,  in  Report  of  the  British  Association, 

for  1878,  p.  622  Jf. 


THE  WAY  OF  MOUNT  SEIF. 


79 


any  trouble.”1  Somewhere  within  that  mountain  tract,  Hol- 
land would  look  for  Kadesh-barnea ; although  he  was  not  biased 
in  favor  of  any  site  yet  suggested,  and  he  had  not  himself  explored 
the  region  in  which  he  would  expect  to  find  signs  of  it. 

This  independent  conclusion  of  so  competent  an  explorer  as 
Holland,  as  to  the  route  of  the  Israelites  northward  from  Mount 
Sinai,  is  in  full  accord  with  all  that  the  Bible  narrative  has  yet 
indicated  to  us  in  our  search  for  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea ; and  it 
goes  to  show  that  the  Mount  Seir  Road,  by  which  the  Israelites 
moved  out  from  the  Mount  Sinai  group,  was  the  easternmost  of  the 
three  roads  which  went  from  that  group  Canaanward ; a road 
which  headed  directly  toward  the  Mount  Seir  range,2  and  which 
might  indeed  have  been  followed  to  that  range  by  a caravan  with- 
out wagons,  and  which  was  not  bound  for  Canaan.  In  the  days 
of  Moses,  as  now,  it  was  not  always  necessary  to  follow  a road  to 
its  terminus  ; nor  was  it  customary  to  keep  on  in  a road  beyond  a 
point  where  one  must  turn  from  it  in  order  to  reach  the  place  for 
which  he  had  set  out.  If  a man  should  say,  at  Hebron,  that  he 
had  come  from  Cairo  and  Suez  by  the  Mekkeh  Road  (or  even  if  he 
omitted  mention  of  Suez),  it  would  not  be  supposed  that  he  had 
followed  the  Hajj  route  across  the  Sinaitic  desert ; nor  that  he  had 
been  to  Mekkeh.  And  when  Moses  referred  to  the  coming  to 
Kadesh-barnea  from  Sinai  by  the  Mount  Seir  Road,  he  clearly 
did  not  mean  that  the  Israelites  took  in  Mount  Seir  on  their  way; 
for  that  range  was  not  on  any  route  between  Sinai  and  the  southern 
border  of  Canaan  ; but  it  was  a region  that  they  were  particularly 
forbidden  to  enter.3 

1 Jour.,  of  Viet.  Inst.,  Yol.  XIV.,  p.  11. 

2 “ There  are  now  three  routes  from  Sinai  to  Hebron  or  Gaza : that  by  the  Rakineh 
Pass  ; [that]  by  the  Mareikhy  Pass ; [and  that]  by  the  Zaraneh  or  Zulakeh  Pass  and 
El-’Ain.  Of  these  three  the  Hebrews  took  the  most  easterly  by  El-’Ain,  which  was 
called  the  Way  of  Mount  Seir,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  others.”  (Rowlands,  in  Imp. 
Bib.  Tic.,  s.  v.,  “ Rithmah.”) 

3 “ Meddle  not  with  them,”  said  the  Lord  to  Israel,  concerning  the  dwellers  in 


80 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


If  Holland  is  correct,  as  there  seems  no  good  reason  for  doubt- 
ing, and  the  route  he  has  indicated  is  “ the  only  available  route 
for  the  children  of  Israel  to  have  taken,”  with  their  tabernacle 
wagons,  then  we  can  see  clearly  just  how  far  they  followed  the 
Mount  Seir  Road,  and  at  what  portion  of  its  course  they  turned 
northerly  or  northwesterly  into  “that  great  and  terrible  wilder- 
ness” with  which  they  became  acquainted  as  they  moved  across  it, 
to  take  the  Amorite  Hill-country  Road  up  to  the  very  borders  of 
Canaan. 


11.  THE  AMORITE  HILL-COUNTRY  ROAD. 

To  identify  the  Amorite  Hill-country  Road 1 is  not  so  easy  as  to 
identify  the  Mount  Seir  Road ; yet  it  must  be  one  of  two  roads 
across  the  desert  toward  Canaan : and  whichever  of  these  it  may 
prove  to  be,  its  bearing  on  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea  is  prac- 
tically the  same. 

Coming  out  on  to  the  desert  Et-Teeh  from  the  Mount  Seir 
Road,  as  described  by  Holland,  the  Israelites  moving  Canaanward 
would  still  be  limited  in  their  choice  of  routes  by  the  natural 
characteristics  of  thy  _ , untry  before  them.2  They  were  on  a roll- 
ing plateau  c me  rifteen  hundred  feet  above  the  level  of  the  ?Ara- 
bah.3  Th;  same  conditions  which  decided  the  course  of  Kedor- 

Mount  jieir ; “for  I will  not  give  you  of  their  land,  no  not  so  much  as  a foot  breadth; 
because  I have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a possession.”  (Deut.  2 : 5.) 

1 “ re  went  through  all  that  great  and  terrible  wilderness  which  ye  saw  by  the 

Way  l the  Road]  of  the  Mountain  [the  Hill-country]  of  the  Amorites and  we 

came  to  Kadesh-barnea.”  (Deut.  1 : 19.) 

2 A lough  the  movements  of  the  Israelites  were  guided  by  the  pillar  of  fire  and 
clorlfthey  had  the  skilled  guide  Hobab  to  be  as  “ eyes”  to  them  in  picking  out  the 
be't  desert  trails  (comp.  Num.  9:  15-23,  and  Num.  10:  29-31.)  Thus  the  wise  men 
from  the  East  guided  by  the  star  toward  Bethlehem,  had  thfe  choice  before  them 
between  any  two  roads  which  ran  in  the  direction  of  their  pursuit. 

3 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  176,  with  references  to  Russeger,  etc.,  in  a note. 


THE  AMO  RITE  HILL-COUNTRY  ROAD. 


81 


la’omer’s  march  into  southern  Canaan 1 would  combine  to  influence 
their  movements.  The  main  road  across  the  Wilderness  of  Paran 
(a  “ great  and  terrible  wilderness,” 2 as  they  considered  it)  up  to 
the  “ Plill-country  of  the  Amorites  ” (which  began  at  the  centre 
of  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan 3)  swept  from  the  Red  Sea 
Road4  (the  modern  Hajj  route  from  ’Aqabah  to  Suez),  along  around 
the  southern  base  of  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract  until  it  joined 
the  Wall  Road  (the  “ Way  of  Shur  ” 5)  near  Jebel  Muwaylih,6  or 
until  it  diverged  northeasterly,  near  that  point,  and  passed  into  the 
’Azazimeh  tract  to  the  strategic  stronghold  of  Kadesh-barnea,  at 
the  very  base  of  “ the  Mountain  of  the  Amorites.” 7 

Until  recently  it  seemed  as  if  there  were  no  alternative  to  this 
route  Canaanward,  for  a caravan  that  was  moving  across  the 
Desert  et-Teeh  from  the  eastward,  or  from  southeastward.  Robin- 
son emphasized  this  fact  after  his  first  journey  over  the  desert 
northward.  He  saw,  from  the  structure  of  the  entire  region,  that 
roads  from  the  east  or  southeast  which  “ in  any  degree  touch  the 
high  plateau  of  the  desert  south  of  El-Mukrah,  must  necessarily 
curve  to  the  west,  and  passing  around  the  base  of  Jebel  ’Araif  el- 
Nakah,  continue  along  the  western  side  of  this  mountainous 
tract.”8  He  saw,  also,  that  this  would  have  seemed  to  be  the 
natural  course  for  the  Israelites,  were  it  not  that  he  had  fixed,  in 
his  own  mind,  on  a site  for  Kadesh-barnea  which  was  not  to  be 
reached  by  this  great  natural  highway  over  the  desert  from  Sinai 
to  Canaan.  “ In  respect  to  the  route  of  the  Israelites  in  approach- 
ing Palestine,”  he  said,9  concerning  this  otherwise  inevitable  high- 
way, “ we  here  obtained  only  the  conviction  that  they  could  not 
have  passed  to  the  westward  of  Jebel  ’Araif  [as  other  travelers 
“ must  necessarily 99  do]  ; since  such  a course  would  have  brought 

1 See  page  38,  supra.  2 Deut.  1 : 19.  3 See  page  75/.,  supra ; also  Judges  1 : 36. 

4 Num.  14 : 25 ; Deut.  1 : 40 ; 2 : 1.  5 Gen.  16  : 7.  6 See  page  42,  supra. 

7 See  page  65  jf.,  supra;  also  Deut.  1 : 20. 

8 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  186/. 

6 


*lbid.,  p.  187. 


82 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


them  directly  to  Beersheba,  and  not  to  Kadesh,  which  latter  city 
lay  near  to  the  border  of  Edom.” 1 

On  the  face  of  it,  therefore,  the  Amorite  Hill-country  Road 
would  seem  to  have  been  that  one  road  which  presents  itself  for  a 
desert-crossing  to  a northward-bound  traveler  coming  out  of  the 
Mount  Sinai  group  by  the  easternmost  or  Mount  Seir  Road.  That 
is  the  road  which  leads  to  the  Amorite  Hill-country.  It  is  the 
road,  also,  which  Robinson  followed,  and  which  Kedor-la’omer 
had  taken  before  him.  It  is  obviously  the  road  which  the  Israel- 
ites would  have  taken  unless,  indeed,  they  were  compelled  to  go 
elsewhere  for  reasons  not  yet  indicated.  And  as  we  have  seen  no 
reason  for  doubting  that  this  road  would  be  as  likely  to  lead  the 
Israelites  to  Kadesh-barnea  as  it  was  to  lead  Kedor-la’omer  there, 
we  must  accept  all  these  indications  of  its  identity  unless  we  find 
some  specific  reason  for  supposing  that  the  borders  of  Edom,  as 
well  as  Kadesh-barnea,  did  not  lie  within  the  ?Azazimeh  mountain 
tract. 

Of  late,  a possibility  of  an  alternative  road  through  the  ’Azaz- 
imeh  mountain  tract,  running  diagonally  northwestward  from 
the  southeastern  corner  of  that  tract,  has  been  suggested ; and 
this  ought  not  to  pass  unnoticed  here.  Mention  has  already  been 
made2  of  a road  in  this  general  direction  running  out  of  the 
’Arabah,  as  suggested  by  Wilton,  and  as  tracked  in  a portion  of 
its  course  by  Palmer.  But  it  was  reserved  for  the  experienced 
Holland  to  note  the  possibility  of  such  a road  out  from  the  Desert 
et-Teeh.  It  was  on  his  last  visit  to  the  Peninsula  that  he  first 

1 This  is  a marked  illustration  of  unconscious  reasoning  in  a circle.  Robinson  first 
decides  that  Kadesh-barnea  is  at  a certain  point  in  the  ’Arabah — because  that  point 
lies  in  the  road  which  was  taken  by  the  Israelites.  Afterwards  he  decides  that  the 
Israelites  did  not  take  the  road  which  would  have  seemed  to  be  their  inevitable 
route — because,  forsooth,  that  road  would  not  lead  them  to  his  fore-determined  site  of 
Kadesh-barnea!  (Comp.  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  187 ; II.,  174/.,  192-195.) 

2 See  page  39,  note,  supra. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


83 


ascertained  that  Jebel  Muqrah  was  separated  from  Jebel  Jerafeh, 
at  the  southeastern  corner  of  that  mass  of  mountains,  instead  of  the 
two  mountains  being  in  a connected  and  unbroken  range,  as  was 
before  supposed.1  Between  these  two  mountains  there  is  a road- 
way, which  Holland  thinks  finds  its  course  up  to  the  borders  of 
Canaan — to  the  Amorite  Hill-country.  He  would  recognize  in 
this  the  “ Way  of  the  Spies ; ” but  whether  he  be  correct  or  not,  it 
will  be  seen  that  there  is  a possibility  of  the  Amorite  Hill-country 
Road  being  yet  identified  in  this  route.  But,  as  was  said  at  the 
start,  whichever  of  the  two  alternative  routes  be  fixed  upon,  its 
bearing  on  the  probable  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  is  practically  the 
same.  Kadesh-barnea  being  somewhere  within  the  ’Azazimeh 
mountain  block,  lying  at  the  base  of  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
Amorite  Hill-country,  it  would  be  practicable  to  reach  it  from  the 
southeast  *by  such  a road  as  that  now  suggested  by  Holland,  or 
from  the  west  by  the  route  which  we  understand  Kedor-la’omer  to 
have  taken,  and  which  has  hitherto  seemed  the  more  natural,  and 
indeed  the  only,  route  to  its  secluded  fastnesses. 

12.  THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 

When  “ Moses  sent  messengers  from  Kadesh  unto  the  king  of 
Edom,”  asking  permission  for  the  Israelites  to  pass  through  his 
territory  on  their  final  move  toward  Canaan,  he  said  of  their  loca- 
tion, “ Behold,  we  are  in  Kadesh,  a city  in  the  uttermost  of  thy 
border;”2  and  this  raises  the  question,  Where  was  the  western 
border  of  Edom  ? 

It  ought  to  be  noted  just  here,  that  the  Hebrew  word  translated 
“ city” 3 does  not  of  necessity  involve  the  idea  of  a walled  town, 
or  even  of  a town  of  any  sort.  Its  “ signification  is  of  wide  ex- 

1 See  Holland’s  reports  of  his  journey,  in  Jour,  of  Viet.  Inst.,  Vol.  XIV.,  pp.  2-11, 
and  Report  of  Brit.  Assoc.,  for  1878,  p.  622  ff. 

2 Num.  20 : 16. 


3 ’eer  (Vy). 


84 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


tent,  embracing  . . . the  idea  of  an  encampment,”1  as  well  as  of  a 
watched  and  guarded  stronghold ; “ a surrounded  place,”  “ a forti- 
fied camp.”2 

It  is  not  within  the  range  of  probability  that  the  vast  host  of 
Israel  should  have  been  in  a single  city,  least  of  all  in  any  city 
which  could  have  existed  in  that  day  on  the  desert  border  of 
Canaan.  It  is  a mistake  which  scholars  have  made  all  the  way 
along  in  their  searching  for  the  route  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt 
to  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  to  look  for  an  identification  of  any 
station  in  the  record  of  the  exodus  and  wanderings  in  the  site  of 
an  ancient  city.3  In  connection  with  the  visits  of  the  Israelites  to 
Kadesh,  there  is  no  indication  of  any  capture  of  a hostile  city 
there,  or  of  any  intercourse  with  the  people  of  a friendly  city. 
But  from  the  prominence  given  to  Kadesh  in  the  military  move- 
ments of  both  Kedor-la’omer  and  the  Israelites,  it  would  appear 
that  that  place  was  a natural  stronghold,  a strategic  watching- 
place  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan  ; and  it  would,  therefore, 
be  a most  natural  way  of  stating  the  case,  for  the  Israelites  to  say 
to  the  king  of  Edom,  u We  are  in  Kadesh,  a fortified  encampment 
[a  hill -surrounded  fastness]  in  the  uttermost  of  thy  border.”  The 
language  recorded  is  quite  consistent  with  that  interpretation. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  locate  Edom  as  a whole,  nor  is  it  difficult  to 
say  where  was  its  centre,  its  kernel,  its  core.  The  difficulty  lies  in 
fixing  the  western  stretch  and  boundary,  at  a given  time,  of  a land 
which  clearly  had  different  boundaries  at  different  periods,  and  which 
is  nowhere  described  in  its  precise  limitations,  either  in  the  Bible,  or 
— prior  to  the  Christian  era — in  outside  history.  Yet  the  difficulty 
which  does  exist  is  not  so  great  as  it  has  been  made  to  appear. 

“ Edom  ” and  “ Seir  ” are  terms  which  are  often  used  inter- 
changeably as  the  designation  of  a region  occupied  by  Esau  and 

1 Gesenius,  in  Ileb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  2 Fiirst,  Heb  and  Chald.  Lex.  s.  v. 

3 This  point  is  treated  more  fully  in  the  Route  of  the  Exodus,  infra. 


/ 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


85 


his  descendants.1  “ Mount  Seir/7  the  range  of  mountains  running 
southward  from  the  Dead  Sea,  on  the  east  of  the  7Arabah,  was  a 
main  feature  of  “ Edom  77 ; 2 but  “ Seir/7  3 and  “ the  land  of  Seir/7 4 
and  “ the  country  [or  field]  of  Edom/7  5 are  terms  which  are 
clearly  not  limited  to,  nor  indeed  are  commonly,  if  ever,  identical 
with,  “ Mount  Seir77  in  the  Bible  text.  The  practical  question  for 
solution  is,  therefore,  What  portion  of  the  country  at  the  westward 
of  the  7Arabah  was  included  in  “ Seir/7  and  in  “ the  country  of 
Edom/7  in  the  days  of  the  Israelites7  wanderings  ? 

Not  only  is  there  no  suggestion  in  the  Bible  that  “ Seir 77  and 
“ the  country  of  Edom  77  were  limited  to  the  “ Mount  Seir  ,7  on 
the  east  of  the  7Arabah,  but  the  idea  of  such  a limitation,  at  any 
period  of  the  history  of  Edom,  does  not  seem  to  have  entered  a 
human  mind  until  more  than  thirty  centuries  after  the  days  of 
Moses,  when  it  was  given  shape  in  an  incidental  mention  by  the 
great  geographer  Beland,6  while  he  was  pointing  a caution  against 
counting  the  boundaries  of  Edom  as  alike  at  all  periods  of  history. 
At  the  same  time,  however,  Beland  recognized  the  fact  that  in 
some  way  “ the  region  occupied  by  Edom  and  his  posterity  [which 
is],  called  in  Holy  Scripture  ‘ the  field  of  Edom 7 and  ‘ the  land  of 
Seir/  . . . was  situated  between  Egypt  and  Canaan  ; so  that  the 
southern  boundaries  of  the  land  [of  Canaan],  in  which  was  the 
portion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  touched  the  terminus  of  the  region 
of  Edom.77  The  incidental  suggestion  of  Beland  as  to  the  early 
limits  of  Edom  would  probably  have  had  little  influence  in  the 
field  of  Bible  geography,  if  it  had  not  been  renewed,  in  another 
form,  by  Bobinson,  a century  and  more  later,  as  an  argument  in 
support  of  a site  which  he  had  fixed  upon  as  that  of  Kadesh- 
barnea — which  latter  place  was  at  the  uttermost  border  of  Edom. 

1 See  Gen.  32 : 3 ; 36:  1,  8,  9,  19,  21,  43;  Num.  24 : 18;  Deut.  2:  4,  5,  8,  29; 
Josh.  24 : 4. 

2 Gen.  14  : 6 ; 36  : 8,  9 ; Deut.  2:8;  Josh.  24  : 4.  3 Gen.  33  : 14  ; Deut.  1 : 44. 

4 Gen.  32 : 3.  5 Gen.  32 : 3.  6 Palaestina , p.  66. 


86 


KADESII-BA  RNEA. 


Indeed,  Robinson  himself  had  held  another  view  than  Reland’s 
prior  to  his  fixing  of  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea ; and  in  an  elabo  - 
rate  series  of  articles  on  Idumea,  or  Edom,1  not  long  before  his 
first  visit  to  the  Holy  Land,  he  said  of  the  Mount  Seir  ranging- 
field  of  “ the  children  of  Esau  : ” “ It  is  only  proper  to  add  here, 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  regard  the  Edomites  as  wholly  confined 
to  this  region.  It  is  not  improbable  that  they  also  had  possession, 
at  least  occasional,  of  the  mountains  and  part  of  the  desert  west 
of  the  Ghor  [the  ’Arabah]  ; as  we  know  that  at  a later  period  they 
subdued  the  southern  part  of  Palestine,  as  far  as  Hebron ; and 
also  made  excursions  through  or  around  the  land  of  Moab,  and 
became  masters  of  Bozrah.”2  But  when  Robinson  had  decided  in 
his  own  mind  that  Kadesh-barnea  was  in  the  ’Arabah,  it  became 
necessary  to  push  back  the  western  boundary  of  the  Edomites  to 
a line  within  which,  he  had  before  seen  and  said,  it  was  “not  neces- 
sary” to  regard  them  as  “ wholly  confined ; ” for,  “ otherwise,”  he 
said,  “ the  Israelites,  in  journeying  three  times  between  Kadesh 
and  Ezion-geber,  must  have  passed  twice  through  Edom ; which  we 
know  was  not  permitted.”  3 

Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  desert  roads,  so  capable  an 
explorer  as  Robinson  seems  unconsciously  to  be  reasoning  in  a circle 
with  reference  to  the  location  of  Kadesh.4  Having  settled  it  in 
his  own  mind  that  the  Israelites  passed  up  the  ’Arabah  toward 
Canaan,  he  fixes  on  a site  in  the  line  of  that  road  as  the  most  prob- 
able one  for  Kadesh.5  When  he  sees,  however,  that  their  more 
natural  course  would  have  been  in  another  direction,  he  decides 
that  they  could  not  have  taken  that,  because  it  would  not  have  led 
them  by  his  Kadesh — which  he  had  selected  because  it  was  on  the 
way  that,  in  his  opinion,  they  did  take.6  His  Kadesh  was  the 

1 In  Bib . Repos,  for  April,  July,  and  October,  1833.  2 Ibid.,  April,  p.  250. 

3 Robinson’s  “ Notes  on  Biblical  Geography,”  in  Bib.  Sac.  for  May,  1849,  p.  380. 

4 See  page  82,  note,  supra.  5 Comp.  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  173-175 ; 192-195. 

« See  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  187. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


87 


Kadesh  because  it  was  on  their  road  toward  Canaan.  Their  road 
must  have  been  this  road  ; because  otherwise  it  would  not  have 
passed  his  Kadesh,  which  was  the  Kadesh  (Q.  E.  D.).  So  about 
the  boundary  of  Edom.  Before  he  had  fixed  his  Kadesh  in  the 
’Arabah,  it  was  “ not  necessary  ” to  confine  the  Edomites  to  the 
eastward  of  the  ?Arabah ; but  when  he  had  fixed  his  Kadesh  in 
the  ’Arabah,1  it  was  necessary  to  confine  the  Edomites  by  that  boun- 
dary • for  Kadesh  was  at  the  extremest  westward  stretch  of  Edom. 
Edom  must  have  been  limited  to  the  east  of  the  ’Arabah,  because 
Edom  was  eastward  of  Kadesh,  and  his  Kadesh,  which  was  the 
Kadesh,  was  in  the  ’Arabali.  His  Kadesh  must  have  been  the 
Kadesh,  because  the  Kadesh  was  at  the  western  border  of  Edom — 
where  his  Kadesh  was  located  (Q.  E.  D.,  once  more).  At  last 
Robinson  actually  reasoned  himself  to  the  conviction  that  the  view 
which  he  once  held  himself,  and  which  had  never  been  generally 
abandoned  by  scholars,  was  no  longer  a factor  in  the  problem ; and 
he  declared,  as  if  without  a thought  that  his  declaration  would  be 
questioned  by  anybody  : “ Kow  at  that  time  [in  the  days  of  the 
exodus],  as  all  agree , the  territory  of  Edom  was  limited  to  the 
mountains  on  the  east  of  the  ’Arabah.”2 

Because  Robinson  could  safely  be  followed  in  so  many  of  his 
important  discoveries  and  identifications,  he  has  not  unnaturally 
been  followed  in  some  of  his  unconscious  errors  of  identification 
and  reasoning.3  But  in  a search  for  the  identification  of  an  unde- 

1 Comp.  Bib.  Rep.,  April,  1833,  p.  250,  and  Bib.  Sac.,  May,  1849,  p.  379  /. 

2 Bib.  Sac.  for  May,  1849,  p.  380. 

3 It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Robinson  (whose  really  great  service  in  the  cause 
of  biblical  geography  has  fairly  entitled  him  to  be  called  “ the  Reland  of  the  Nine- 
teenth Century  ”)  should  have  made  more  or  less  errors  in  his  wide  and  varied  iden- 
tifications ; but  it  is  a matter  of  surprise  that  some  of  those  errors  should  still  be 
blindly  adhered  to,  after  they  have  been  shown  as  errors  by  proofs  that  Robinson 
would,  if  now  living,  recognize  as  indisputable.  Take,  for  example,  his  locating  of 
Eboda  at  El-’Aujeli  (Bib.  Res.,  I.,  191).  His  guides  knew  that  place  “only  by  the 
name  of  ’Aujeh,”  but  an  Arab  who  was  with  him  said  it  " was  also  called  ’Abdeh.” 


88 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


termined  site,  we  should,  of  course,  put  aside,  for  the  time  being, 
mere  naked  opinions,  and  look  to  the  Bible  text  as  it  stands 
in  its  integrity,  and  to  any  outside  helps  to  the  elucidation  of  that 
text.  So,  now,  in  the  matter  of  the  ancient  borders  of  Edom. 

The  earliest  known  mention  of  “ Mount  Seir  ” is  in  the  Bible 
record  of  Kedor-la’omer’s  campaign,  in  the  days  of  Abraham.1 
This  was  long  before  the  birth  of  Esau ; and  it  is  said  that  the 
Horites,  or  cave-dwellers,  were  then  its  inhabitants.2  These 
Horites  are  said  to  have  been  the  descendants  of  Seir;3  but  it  is 

Afterwards  that  Arab  admitted  “ that  he  knew  this  name  only  from  M.  Linant,  who 
had  visited  the  place  a few  years  before  ” {Bib.  Res.,  I.,  600).  That  was  shaky  proof 
on  which  to  fix  an  identification ; yet  it  was  the  best  that  Eobinson  could  obtain,  ex- 
cept that  it  was  supplemented  some  weeks  later  by  the  assurance  of  "a  very  intelli- 
gent owner  of  camels,”  whom  Eobinson  met  at  Hebron.  On  the  strength  of  this 
information,  with  the  seeming  correspondence  of  the  ruins  with  such  a place  as  the 
ancient  Eboda  must  have  been,  Eobinson  declared,  “We  had  no  doubt  at  the  time, 
nor  have  I now,  that  these  were  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  Eboda , or  Oboda  ” {Bib.  Res., 
I.,  194) ; and  he  even  brushed  away  the  suggestion  of  Seetzen  and  M.  Callier  that 
the  real  ruins  of  ’Abdeh  were  elsewhere,  on  the  ground  that  “both  these  latter  trav- 
elers were  [probably]  misinformed  by  their  Arab  guides”  {Bib.  Res.,  I.,  600) — 
instead  of  taking  the  word  of  “ a very  intelligent  owner  of  camels  ” at  three  days' 
distance  from  the  ruins.  After  all  this,  Stewart  {Tent  and  Khan,  p.  198/.)  and 
Bonar  {Des.  of  Sinai,  p.  302  /.)  gained  information  of  the  existence  of  an  'Abdeh  as 
distinct  from  El-’Aujeh  ; and  finally  Palmer  visited  both  places,  obtained  sketches  of 
them,  proved  their  separateness,  established  the  identification  of  Abdeh  as  Eboda 
{Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  348,  386,  407-423) ; so  that  to-day  there  is  hardly  more  reason  for 
a question  as  to  the  identification  of  Eboda  than  of  Hebron.  Yet  notwithstanding 
all  these  later  discoveries,  Murray’s  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Palestine  (p.  100,  and 
Map)  continues  to  give  El  'Aujeh  as  both  'Abdeh  and  Eboda,  without  so  much  as  an 
intimation  that  the  Eobinson  location  has  ever  been  brought  into  question.  And  this 
is  but  a single  illustration  of  the  difficulty  of  correcting  at  popular  sources  an  error 
in  the  statements  of  “the  Eeland  of  the  Nineteenth  Century .” 

1 Gen.  14:  6;  Dent.  2:  12. 

2 “The  Horites,  as  the  name  signifies  (Heb.  'ijl  from  a hole,  cave),  were 
dwellers  in  caves;  a description  of  people  who  were  afterwards  called  by  the  Greeks 
Troglodytes,  T puyXodvrai,  a word  of  the  same  signification  as  Horites,  derived  from 
Tp&yAij,  a cave.”  (Eobinson,  in  Bib.  Repos.,  April,  1833,  p.  250,  note.) 

3  Gen.  36:  20,  21. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


89 


not  an  uncommon  thing  for  a man  to  have  taken  his  name  from 
the  land  in  which  he  lived.1  The  earliest  known  mention  of  the 
land  of  Edom  is  in  the  Egyptian  records,  at  about  the  same  period 
as  Abraham’s.  In  the  story  of  Saneha,  in  the  Twelfth  Dynasty, 
as  already  referred  to,2  there  are  several  mentions  of  “ Atuma,” 
or  “ Aduma,”  in  such  a connection  as  to  point  to  the  identification 
of  this  land  with  ancient  Edom  ; and  the  subsequent  references  to 
“ Atuma  ” and  its  people  in  the  Egyptian  records,  all  go  to  justify 
this  identification.3  This  also  was  long  prior  to  Esau’s  birth  ; but 
it  in  no  degree  conflicts  with  the  Bible  records  of  Esau’s  relations 
to  the  names  of  the  lands  in  which  at  one  time  and  another  he  was 
a dweller. 

“ Seir  ” means  “ rough,”  “ shaggy,”  “ hairy.”  4 “ Esau  ” means 
the  same.5  “ Edom  ” means  “red.”6  Esau  bore  the  name 
“ Edom.” 7 The  mountains  of  Seir  were  rough  and  shaggy.  The 
cliffs  of  Edom  were  red.8  It  is  in  perfect  accord  with  Oriental 
methods  of  thought  and  speech  to  multiply  meanings  in  a name, 
and  to  multiply  also  the  applications  of  a name  in  its  meaning. 
Esau  was  the  hairy  man ; 9 the  land  of  his  possession  was  of  a 
rough  and  shaggy  front.10  Esau  was  called  Edom,  the  Bed  Man ; 
he  was  the  man  of  red  hair,11  the  man  of  the  red  land,  and  the 

I See  page  56,  note,  supra.  2 gee  page  46>  y ? supra. 

3 See  Rec.  of  Past,  VI.,  135-150 ; also  Lenormant  and  Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist, 
of  East,  II.,  148,  290 ; and  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  146  ff. 

tSa’eer^y  W'),  “ hairy/’  “ shaggy,”  “ rough.”  (Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v.) 

5 ’Esaw  “ hirsute,”  " hairy.”  {Hid.) 

«Edhom.  (OiK),  “red.”  {Ibid.)  7 Gen.  36  . 1}  8,  19. 

8 The  very  name  “ Red  Sea  ’>  is  supposed  by  many  to  have  been  taken  from  the 
bordering  red  cliffs  of  Edom. 

9 “ Esau  my  brother  is  a hairy  man.”  (Gen.  27  : 11.) 

10  “ The  name  may  either  have  been  derived  from  Seir  the  Horite, or,  what  is 

perhaps  more  probable,  from  the  rough  aspect  of  the  whole  country.”  (Porter,  in 
Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Seir.”)  See  also  any  description  of  Mount  Seir. 

II  “ Red,  all  over  like  an  hairy  garment ; and  they  called  his  name  Esau.”  (Gen. 
25:  25.) 


90 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


man  of  a red  choice  : 1 “ Therefore  was  his  name  called  Edom  ” 
— three  times  over.  And  wherever  Esau-Edom  lived  at  any 
time,  that  land  would  naturally  be  called  C(  the  land  of  Seir,”  and 
“ the  field  of  Edom.”  And  so  it  was,  according  to  the  Bible  story. 

When  Esau  had  foolishly  surrendered  his  birthright  interest  in 
Canaan,2  and  had  lost  the  blessing  which  by  Oriental  custom 
belonged  to  the  first-born,3  another  possession  was  promised  to  him 
by  his  aged  father,4  and  God  confirmed  that  inheritance  to  Esau  in 
Mount  Seir  of  Edom.5  But  Esau  did  not  remove  to  his  new 
possession  until  after  the  death  of  his  father.6  Meantime  Jacob  was 
away  from  that  region,7  and  Esau  remained  near  his  father,  occupy- 
ing the  parental  domain,  which  could  not  as  yet  pass  into  the  hands 
of  the  son  who  had  purchased  the  first-born’s  share  in  its  entail. 

Esau  married  and  had  children  long  before  he  permanently  left 
his  old  home  near  Beersheba.8  In  the  more  than  twenty  years  of 
Jacob’s  absence,  Esau’s  families  and  flocks  and  herds  were  in- 
creased to  him ; and  in  the  enfeebled  and  helpless  state  of  the  father, 
the  resident  son  must  have  come  into  larger  prominence,  according 
to  Oriental  usage,9  so  that  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  region 

1 “Esau  said  to  Jacob,  Feed  me,  I pray  thee,  with  that  same  red  pottage ; for  I am 
faint ; therefore  was  his  name  called  Edom.”  (Gen.  25 : 30.) 

2 Gen.  25 : 27-34;  Heb.  12 : 16,  17.  3 Gen.  27  : 1-33.  4 Gen.  27  : 34-40. 

5 Deut.  2:5;  Josh.  24  : 4.  6 Comp,  Gen.  35 : 27-29,  and  Gen.  36  : 1-8. 

7 Gen.  27  : 41-45 ; 28 : 5 ; 32 : 3,  4.  8 Gen.  26  : 34,  35 ; 28  : 6-9. 

9 An  Oriental  father  gains  reflected  honor  in  the  prominence  and  successes  of  his 
sons.  He  even  changes  his  own  name  in  such  a way  as  to  include  his  eldest  son’s 

name,  in  order  to  swell  the  glory  of  the  family  of  which  he  is  the  head.  Even  where 

a man  is  childless  he  sometimes  receives,  by  courtesy,  in  the  East,  the  name  of  father 
of  a hypothetical  son  ; or  in  some  way  the  fatherhood  idea  is  attached  to  his  name. 

(See  e.  g.  Jessup’s  Syrian  Home  Life,  p.  99,  f.,  and  Thomson’s  Land  and  Book,  I.,  475.) 
An  illustration  of  this  is  given  in  the  case  of  Abraham.  While  he  was  yet  childless 
he  was  called  “ Ab-ram,”  “ Father  of  Exaltation.”  He  was  uplifted  in  the  minds  of 
his  fellows  as  one  worthy  to  be  a father.  But  God  gave  him  a promise  of  real  chil- 
dren ; and  as  he  did  so  he  added  (Gen.  17 : 5)  : “ Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more 
be  called  Ab-ram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Ab-raham,  “ Father  of  a Multitude,” 

[“  Aboo-ruham,”  as  the  Arabs  might  write]  ; for  a father  of  many  nations  have  I 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM . 


91 


over  which  Esau  extended  his  patriarchal  stretch  came  to  be 
known  as  “ the  land  of  Seir  ” [or  Esau],  and  “ the  country  [or 
field]  of  Edom.” 1 

There  was  where  Esau  was  living  when  Jacob  came  back  from 
Padan-aram ; for  Isaac  was  not  yet  dead,  and  it  was  not  until 
after  his  death  that  Esau  removed  to  Mount  Seir.2  And  the 
record  shows,  that  as  Jacob  was  returning  toward  Hebron,  he 
“ sent  messengers  before  him  to  Esau  his  brother,  unto  the  land  of 
Seir , the  field  of  Edom.”  3 If  indeed  Esau  had  been  off  in  Mount 
Seir  at  that  time,  Jacob  would  hardly  have  anticipated  a meeting 
with  him  on  his  way  to  Hebron.  And  when  the  brothers  had 
met,  Jacob  spoke  of  himself  as  journeying  by  easy  stages  toward 
the  home  of  Esau,  in  Seir — Esau’s  present  “Seir,”  not  Esau’s 
prospective  “ Mount  Seir.”  “ I will  lead  on  softly,”  he  said, 
“ according  as  the  cattle  that  goeth  before  me  and  the  children  be 
able  to  endure,  until  I come  unto  my  lord  unto  Seir.” 4 This  was 
obviously  no  deceitful  subterfuge  on  Jacob’s  part.  He  did  not  be- 
gin his  new  life  as  “ Israel,”  after  his  night  of  eventful  wrestling,5 
with  a lie  to  his  brother  Esau.  He  meant  what  he  said.  He 
would  move  slowly  toward  Esau’s  home — the  land  of  Seir,  as  it 
was  now  called.  It  was  Esau’s  land  by  possession ; it  was  Jacob’s 
land  by  purchased  birthright ; it  was  as  yet  their  father  Isaac’s 
land  in  reality.  Jacob  might  safely  call  it  Isaac’s  by  courtesy, 
as  everybody  now  called  it,  in  accordance  with  Oriental  custom. 

“ So  Esau  returned  that  day  on  his  way  unto  Seir,” 6 not  unto 
Mount  Seir,  but  unto  his  land  of  Seir;  and  Jacob  followed 

made  thee.”  And  that  new  name  made  all  the  difference  in  the  world  in  Abraham’s 
position  before  the  world — in  the  East.  Thus,  according  to  Eastern  customs,  Isaac 
might  well  have  called  himself  Aboo-Esau,  “ Father  of  Esau ; ” hence  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  name  of  Esau  was  uplifted  in  the  region  where  he  dwelt  with  his  father. 

1 Gen.  32  : 3.  The  word  here  translated  “ country  ” is  sadheh  It  means 

“field,”  rather  than  “ province”  or  “ kingdom:”- 

2 See  Gen.  35 : 27-29 ; 36 : 1-8. 

4 Gen.  33:  14. 


5 Gen.  32:  24-32. 


s Gen.  32  : 3. 
e Gen.  33  : 16. 


92 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


by  easy  stages  to  Shechem,1  and  Bethel,2  and  southward  until 
the  brothers  were  once  more  near  each  other,  at  Hebron3  and 
below,  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  childhood’s  home  and  of  the 
outstretching  domain  of  Esau’s,  there  to  remain  in  filial  and 
fraternal  accord  until  after  their  father’s  death  and  burial.4 

That  the  removal  of  Esau  to  his  divinely  assured  possessions  in 
Mount  Seir  was  not  during  the  absence  of  Jacob  in  Padan-aram, 
is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  text,  and  it  is  evidenced  by  a number 
of  confirmatory  proofs.  The  mention  of  Esau’s  removal  follows 
immediately  on  the  mention  of  Isaac’s  death  and  burial.5  Hot 
until  then  was  there  any  reason  for  Esau’s  leaving  his  bartered 
birthright  inheritance.  Moreover,  it  is  distinctly  said,  that  Esau 
“ went  into  the  country  [of  Mount  Seir,  when  he  did  go  there]  from 
the  face  of  his  brother  Jacob”6  If  Jacob  were  then  living  in 
Padan-aram,  his  face  would  hardly  have  crowded  Esau  out  of 
lower  Canaan.  And  a reason  for  Esau’s  going  “ from  the  face  of 
his  brother  Jacob”  just  then  was,  that  “ their  riches  were  more 
than  that  they  might  dwell  together ; and  the  land  wherein  they 
were  strangers  [sojourners]  could  not  bear  them  because  of  their 
cattle.”7  But  if  there  was  not  even  one  of  Jacob’s  brown  sheep, 
or  ring-streaked  or  spotted  goats,8  within  two  hundred  miles  of 
Hebron  and  Beersheba,  how  could  they  fill  up  the  possessions  of 
Isaac  so  that  Esau  must  look  elsewhere  for  pasturage  ? Yet  then 
it  was — and  even  until  the  very  day  of  Jacob’s  return — that  Esau 
was  a dweller  in  “ the  land  of  Seir,  the  country  of  Edom ; ” 9 not  the 
Mount  Seir,  or  the  Edom  which  was  the  equivalent  of  Mount  Seir. 

This  designation,  of  the  land  of  Esau’s  occupancy  in  Southern 
Canaan,  by  the  name  of  u Seir,”  which  existed  at  the  time  of 
Jacob’s  return  from  Padan-aram,  was  never  lost  to  it.  It  was 

1 Gen.  33  : 17-20.  2 Gen.  35 : 1-8.  3 Gen.  35 : 27. 

4 Gen.  35 : 28,  29.  5 See  Gen.  35 : 27-29 ; 36  : 1-8.  6 Gen.  36 : 6. 

i Gen.  36 : 7.  8 Gen.  30 : 25-43.  9 Gen.  32 : 1-3. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


93 


found  there  when  the  Israelites  made  their  unauthorized  raid 
northward  from  Kadesh-barnea.  “ And  the  Amorites,  which 
dwelt  in  that  mountain,”  said  Moses,  “ came  out  against  you,  and 
chased  you,  as  bees  do,  and  destroyed  you  in  Seir.” 1 Josephus  says 
that  this  dwelling-place  of  Esau  at  the  time  of  Jacob’s  return  was 
a region  “ which  he  had  called  Roughness,  from  his  own  hairiness.”2 
And,  as  will  be  fully  shown,  the  traces  of  that  name  “ Seir  ” are 
to  be  found  there  to-day.  This  Seir,  it  is  to  be  noted,  was  within 
the  boundaries  of  Canaan  proper.  But  south  of  Canaan,  outside 
its  boundary,  the  name  of  “ Edom  ” seems  to  have  extended  along 
some  distance  westward  of  the  ’Arabah  from  a very  early  period, 
certainly  before  the  days  of  Israel’s  occupancy  of  Canaan.  It 
must  have  included  the  northeastern  portion  of  the  ’Azazimeh 
mountain  tract,  where  was  the  Wilderness  of  Zin  as  we  have  identi- 
fied it ; hence  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Kadesh-barnea,  within 
that  tract,  is  said  to  be  an  encircled  stronghold  on  the  western 
border  of  Edom. 

To  the  present  time  there  remain  traces  of  the  old  name  of 
“Seir”  in  the  region  southeastward  from  Beersheba,  and  yet 
northward  of  the  natural  southern  boundary  line  of  the  Land  of 
Canaan.  The  extensive  plain  “ Es-Seer  ” is  there,3  corresponding 
with  the  name  and  location  of  the  “Seir”4  at  which,  or  unto 
which,5  the  Israelites  were  chased  by  the  Amorites  when  they  went 
up  in  foolhardiness  from  their  Kadesh-barnea  stronghold.6  An 

1 Deut.  1 : 44.  2 Antiquities,  Book  I.,  Chap.  20,  § 3. 

3 See  Rowlands,  in  Williams’s  Holy  City,  p.  488  /. ; Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II., 

404. 

4 Deut.  1 : 44. 

5 The  Septuagint,  Peshitto  Syriac,  and  Vulgate  (at  Deut.  1 : 44)  read  “ from  Seir,” 
instead  of  “ to  Seir;  ” but  this  does  not  affect  the  location  of  the  place  itself;  it  only 
touches  the  question  whether  the  Israelites  went  beyond  that  boundary,  or  only  up  to 
that  line. 

6 This  identification  of  Es-Seer,  as  the  place  referred  to  in  Deut.  1 : 44,  is  approved 
by  Bitter  ( Geog . of  Pal.,  I.,  431) ; Kurtz  (Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  209,  294) ; Keil  and 


94 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


old  ruin  in  the  vicinity  bears  the  name  of  Qasr  es-Seer,1  and  again 
there  are  seeming  traces  of  the  name  “ Seer,”  through  Sa’eed,  in 
the  Wady  Sa’eedat  not  far  from  there,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Arab  tribe,  Sa’eediyeh,  inhabiting  the  old  land  of  Seir.2 

That  this  “ Es-Seer  ” is  the  “ Seir  ” of  the  days  of  Moses  and 
Joshua,  and  hence  also  the  Seir,  as  distinct  from  Mount  Seir,  of 
the  days  of  Esau,  is  shown  again  by  its  agreement  in  location  with 
the  Seir  of  a notable  boundary-line  landmark  in  the  description  of 
Joshua’s  conquests  in  the  Land  of  Promise.3  “So  Joshua  took 
all  that  land,”  it  is  said;  “even  from  the  Mount  Halak4  [the 
Smooth,  or  Bald  Mountain]  that  goeth  up  to  Seir  ” 5 in  the  south 
of  Canaan,  “ even  unto  Baal-gad  in  the  valley  of  Lebanon,  under 
Mount  Hermon,”  in  the  north.  Here,  plainly,  Seir  is  within  the 
limits  of  Canaan,  northward  of  the  southern  landmark  known  as 
the  Smooth  Mountain ; and  this  agrees  most  accurately  with  the 
region  as  disclosed  by  modern  research. 

The  plain  Es-Seer,  already  referred  to,  is  bounded  on  the  south 
by  Wady  Feqreh,6  a wady  which  ascends  southwesterly  from  the 


Delitzsch  (Bib.  Com.  on  0.  T.,  III.,  250/.,  281/.) ; Kalisch  (Com.  on  0.  T.,  at  Gen. 
14:  6);  Alford  (Genesis,  etc.,  at  14  • 6);  Wordsworth  (Bible  with  Notes,  at  Num. 
34 : 3) ; Schaff-Lange  Com.  (at  Num.  34 : 3 and  Deut.  1 : 44) ; Speaker’s  Com.  (at 
Num.  14:  45) ; Wilton  (The  Negeb,  pp.  73  note,  198) ; etc. 

1 See  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  !.,  345  /.  Robinson  visited  this  site,  but  he  seems 
to  have  run  the  two  names  together,  and  called  it  “ el-kuseir  ” — “ the  little  castle.” 
(See  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  198.)  Wilson  was  an  accurate  Oriental  scholar. 

2 See  Wilton’s  The  Negeb,  p.  198/.  3 Josh.  11 : 15-17;  12 : 7,  8. 

4 The  Hebrew  is  Khalaq  “smooth,”  “bald,”  “bare,”  as  opposed  to 

“ hairy,”  “ rough.”  (See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v.)  Thus  Jacob  was  a khalaq  man, 
and  Esau  was  a sa’eer  man  (Gen.  27  : 11).  Our  King  James  Version’s  margin,  and 
most  modern  English  translations,  recognise  this  “ Mount  Halak  ” as  the  Smooth,  or 
Bald,  Mountain. 

5 The  Smooth  Mountain  goes  up  to  the  Rough  Plain  ; the  Bald  Slope  to  the  Hairy 
Crown;  Khalaq  to  Sa’eer  ; Jacob’s  boundary-wall  to  Esau’s  early  domain. 

6 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  178-182;  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  340; 
Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  415 ; etc. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


95 


’Arabah,  from  a point  not  far  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  which 
separates  Palestine  proper  from  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  or 
Jebel  Muqrah  group.1  The  northern  wall  of  this  wady  is  a 
bare  and  bald  rampart  of  rock,  forming  a natural  boundary  as 
it  “ goeth  up  to  Seir ; ” a landmark  both  impressive  and  unique, 
and  which  corresponds  with  all  the  Bible  mentions  of  the  Mount 
Halak. 

Canon  Williams,  accompanying  his  friend  Rowlands,  was  first 
among  modern  travelers  to  visit  and  describe  this  peculiar  range. 
He  came  toward  it  from  Hebron  along  “the  grand  plain  called 
Es-Seer.”  Of  its  appearance,  as  it  first  met  his  sight,  he  says : 2 
“ Having  ascended  a ridge,  a scene  of  awful  grandeur  burst  sud- 
denly upon  us  with  such  startling  effect  as  to  strike  us  dumb  for 
some  moments.  We  found  ourselves  standing  on  a gigantic  nat- 
ural rampart  of  lofty  mountains,  which  we  could  trace  distinctly 
for  many  miles  east  and  west  of  the  spot  on  which  we  stood ; 
whose  precipitous  promontories  of  naked  rock,  forming  as  it  were 
bastions  of  cyclopean  architecture,  jutted  forth  in  irregular  masses 
from  the  mountain  barrier  into  a frightfully  terrific  wilderness, 
[the  Wilderness  of  Zin,]  stretching  far  before  us  towards  the  south, 
whose  horrors  language  must  fail  to  describe.  It  was  a confused 
chaos  of  chalk,  and  had  the  appearance  of  an  immense  furnace 
glowing  with  white  heat,  illuminated  as  it  now  was  by  the  fierce 
rays  of  the  sun.  There  did  not  appear  to  be  the  least  particle  of 
vegetation  in  all  the  dreary  waste : all  was  drought  and  barrenness 
and  desolation . [The  Bald  Mountain.]  Immediately  below  was 
a wide  and  well-defined  valley,  called  Wady  Murreh.”  This  pic- 
ture of  the  bare  and  desolate  mountain  that  goeth  up  to  Seir  is  the 
more  marked  in  view  of  the  fact  that  neither  Canon  Williams  nor 

1 Luther’s  Version  of  the  Bible  renders  the  references  to  Mount  Halak  in  Josh. 
11:  17  and  12  : 7 as  “the  mountain  which  divides  the  land  up  to  Seir.”  This  in- 
volves, however,  a slightly  different  Hebrew  text. 

2 Holy  City , p.  487/. 


96 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


his  friend  Rowlands  identified  it  with  the  Mount  Halak  (they 
proposing  another  location  for  that1) ; yet  the  former  wrote  : “We. 
felt  no  doubt  that  we  were  standing  on  the  mountain-barrier  of  the 
Promised  Land.” 

Professor  Palmer2  says  of  this  same  region ; and  this  again 
without  a suggestion  that  it  was  “ the  Bald  Mountain  ” he  was 
describing  : “ The  view  from  the  top  is  very  impressive ; as  well 
as  the  precipitous  cliffs  which  everywhere  meet  the  eye,  hu gejorfs,3 
mountains  in  themselves,  rise  up  on  either  side  of  the  wady 
[Murrah]  bed.  The  rocks  being  of  limestone,  and  not  relieved 
by  any  verdure , produce  a glare  that  is  most  distressing  to  the 
eyes.” 

The  very  name  “ Mount  Halak  ” 4 — the  Smooth,  or  Bald,  Moun- 
tain— seems  to  be  preserved,  or  revindicated,  in  an  Arabic  synonym 
“ Es-Sufah,”5  as  the  name  of  a principal  pass  into  Palestine,  going 
up  this  natural  barrier  from  Wady  Feqreh  to  the  plain  Es-Serr,  or 
Seir,  northward.6  Frey  tag 7 defines  “ Es-Sufah  ” as  meaning  “ the 
hard,  dense  rock  which  bears  no  vegetation  ” 8 — smooth  and  bald. 
There  is  a remarkable  unity  in  the  reports  of  travelers  as  to  the 
correspondence  of  this  mountain-side  pass  with  the  Scriptural 
boundary  mark  of  “ the  Mount  Halak ; ” a unity  all  the  more 
remarkable  in  that  not  one  of  them  has  seemed  to  have  in  mind 
this  seemingly  self-evident  identification. 

Robinson9  speaks  of  this  “ ascent  to  Seir  ” as  “ a formidable 

1 See  Holy  City , p.  491.  2 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  406. 

3 “ A jorf}  that  is  a steep  bank  formed  by  the  torrent  cutting  through  the  soil  of  the 

wady -bed”  {Ibid.,  p.  338).  See  Freytag’s  Lexicon  Arabico-Latinum,  s.  v. 

4 Heb.  pbnn  inn ; hahar  he-khalaq. 

5 sLsLoJb  The  Speaker’s  Commentary  (at  Num.  34:  3-5)  renders  this  “ Nakb 
es-Safah,”  as  the  “ Pass  of  the  Bare  Rock.” 

6 And  the  pass  next  to  the  east  of  it  is  “ Es-Sufey,”  the  diminutive  of  “ Es-Sufah.” 

7 In  Arab.  Lot.  Lex.,  s.  v.  8 Petra  dura,  crassa,  plantas  non  producens. 

» Bib.  Res.,  II.,  178-181. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


97 


barrier,  a naked  limestone  ridge  not  less  than  a thousand  feet  in 
height  and  very  steep ; ” the  path  over  Es-Sufah  being  “ upon  the 
naked  surface  of  the  rock,”  ascending  along  “ this  bare  rock,”  which 
is  “in  many  places  smooth  and  dangerous  for  animals,”  the  camels 
making  “ their  way  with  difficulty,  being  at  every  moment  liable  to 
slip.”  Von  Schubert  describes  it  as  “ a high,  bald  hill.”1  Lord 
Lindsay2  calls  it  “a  precipitous  sheet  of  bare  rock,  alternately 
smooth  and  slippery,  and  covered  with  loose  stones.”  Miss  Mar- 
tineau 3 speaks  of  “the  steep  slope  being  bare  shelvy  limestone.” 
Wilson4  says : “ Not  a particle  of  vegetation  was  visible  on  its  chalky 
cliffs,  which  appeared  like  a natural  rampart  to  the  land.”  Olin5 
refers  to  the  slope  as  “ tolerably  smooth,”  but  “ so  steep  that  it  is 
barely  possible  for  loaded  camels  to  ascend.”  Durbin6  is  sure  that 
this  mountain  formed  “the  southern  boundary  of  Judea.”  “This 
mountain  wall,”  is  what  “ El-Mukattem  ” 7 calls  it ; and  the  Pass 
Sufali  he  designates  as  “ a steep,  smooth  rocky  surface.”  “ A slip- 
pery ascent  it  proved,”  says  Formby.8  And  Caroline  Paine’s 
testimony9  is:  “The  rocks  were  too  smooth  to  present  a very 
secure  foothold  for  even  the  cautious  camels,  and  nearly  all  of  those 
[riders]  who  generally  remained  mounted  when  climbing  the  rocky 
passes,  preferred  trusting  to  their  own  feet  here.” 

Is  it  not  clear  that  this  bald  and  bare  northern  wall  of  Wady 
Feqreh,  this  natural  rampart  of  Canaan,  with  its  smooth  rock 
passes,  Es-Sufah  and  Es-Sufey,  going  up  to  the  plain  Es-Seer, 
is  “ the  Smooth  Mountain  that  goeth  up  to  Seir  ” — the  western 
land  of  Seir,  in  southern  Canaan?10 

1 Reise  in  das  Morgenland,  II.,  443.  2 Letters,  II.,  46. 

3 Eastern  Life,  p.  369.  4 Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  342.  5 Travels,  II.,  62. 

6 Observ.  in  East,  I.,  197.  7 Lands  of  Moslem,  p.  234. 

8 Visit  to  East , p.  321.  9 Tent  and  Harem,  p.  294. 

10  Keil  and  Delitzsch  {Bib.  Com.  on  0.  T.,  VIII.,  123),  and  Kurtz  {Hist,  of  Old  Cov., 
III.,  205),  incline  to  this  identification ; although  neither  of  them  has  seemed  to 

recognize  the  significance  of  the  remaining  name  “ Es-Sufah.” 

7 


98 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


There  is  a reason  which  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  old  name  of  Seir  in  the  south  of  Canaan  after 
Esau  had  removed,  with  all  his  family,  to  his  divinely  assured 
possession  in  Mount  Seir.  Two  of  the  wives  of  Esau  were  Ca- 
naanites ; 1 another  wife  was  of  the  daughters  of  Ishmael.2  The 
descendants  of  these  wives  would  naturally  have  affiliation  with  the 
people  of  their  maternal  ancestry.  Even  though  Esau  took  with 
him  all  his  family  and  all  his  substance  when  he  went  from 
Southern  Canaan  to  the  region  of  Mount  Seir,3  it  is  every  way 
probable  that  more  or  less  of  his  descendants  of  the  Canaanitish 
stock  would  wander  back  before  long  to  the  fields  of  their  fathers 
— the  fields  which  they  themselves,  in  some  cases,  had  occupied — 
west  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  ’Arabah  ; and  again  that  some  of 
those  who  were  of  Ishmaelitish,  hence  of  Egyptian,4  stock,  would 
spread  themselves  along  the  upper  desert,  in  the  Wilderness  of 
Paran,  where  Ishmael  had  roamed  Egyptward.5  Indeed,  that 
something  like  this  was  the  case  with  the  Amalekite  posterity  of 
Edom  (if,  as  seems  probable,  the  Amalekites  were  descended  from 
both  Esau  and  Seir6)  is  evident  from  the  Bible  text.  They  were 
already  down  in  the  mountains  of  Sinai,7  and  up  in  the  hills  of 
southern  Canaan 8 in  the  days  of  the  exodus. 

Two  centuries  and  a half,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  passed, 
between  the  occupancy  of  Mount  Seir  by  Esau  and  the  appearance 
of  the  Israelites  on  the  verge  of  Canaan.  This  gave  time  for 
great  changes  in  the  border  lines  of  nomadic  tribes.  An  Egyptian 
papyrus  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty — the  supposed  dynasty  of  the 

1 Compare  Gen.  26 : 34 ; 27  : 46 ; 36 : 2. 

Concerning  the  seeming  confusion  in  the  several  mentions  of  these  wives,  see 
Smith-HacJcett  Bib.  Die .,  s.  vv.  “ Adah,”  “ Aliolibamah,”  “ Bashemath.” 

2 Gen.  28  : 9 ; 36  : 3.  3 Gen.  36  : 6.  4 Gen.  16  : 3,  15. 

6 Gen.  21  : 21.  6 Gen.  36 : 12,  20,  22.  See  p.  40,  /.,  note,  supra. 

8 Num.  14  : 45. 


’ Exod.  17  : 8. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


99 


exodus — refers  to  “the  Shasoo  of  the  country  of  Aduma''  (the 
Bed' ween  of  Edom  or  Seir)  as  already  at  the  doors  of  Lower 
Egypt,  and  even  as  permitted  to  enter  that  land  as  settlers  there.1 
And  all  the  indications  of  the  Egyptian  records  would  show  that 
the  Edomite  Bed'ween  roamed  freely,  at  this  time,  from  the 
'Arabah  to  the  Delta. 

As  already  stated,  the  region  assured  to  Esau  and  his  descen- 
dants by  the  divine  promise  was  Mount  Seir,  the  mountain  range 
on  the  east  of  the  'Arabah,  a region  wholly  outside  of  the  limits 
of  Canaan — the  birthright  inheritance  bartered  to  Jacob.  The 
names  “Seir/'  and  “field  of  Edom/'2  applied,  for  the  reasons 
noted,  to  the  old  ranging-field  of  Esau  in  southern  Canaan,  are  not 
to  be  confounded  with  Esau's  Mount  Seir  and  the  old  region  of 
Edom  proper  as  it  existed  before  the  days  of  Esau.  But  Edom 
proper  seems  always  to  have  included,  in  its  westward  stretch,  the 
'Arabah  and  more  or  less  of  the  mountain  region  west  of  the 
'Arabah  and  southward  of  the  natural  boundary  line  between  these 
mountains  and  Canaan  ; southward  of  Wady  Feqreh,  with  its 
Azazimeh,  or  Muqrah,  mountain-wall  standing  over  against  the 
wall  of  Mount  Halak.  This  is  fairly  to  be  inferred  from  the 
Egyptian  references  to  ancient  Edom ; it  is  consistent  with  our 
earliest  knowledge  of  the  bounds  of  Edom ; it  is  an  inevitable 
deduction  from  the  early  Bible  mentions  of  Edom's  westward 
reach. 

1 See  a translation  from  this  papyrus  in  Brugsch’s  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  642  ; also  Hist, 
of  Egypt,  I.,  247  f. 

2 Wilton  ( The  Negeb , p.  73,  note)  points  out  the  fact  that  the  word  sadheh  (rnfr) 
translated  “ field  ” or  “ country”  (of  Edom),  refers  rather  to  a cultivated  plain  than 
to  a rugged  mountain,  hence  it  is  inapplicable  to  “ Mount  Seir ; ” also  that  it  is  the 
word  applied  proleptically  to  the  domain  of  the  Amalekites  in  the  record  of  Kedor- 
la’omer’s  march  (Gen.  14 : 7)  over  this  very  region.  In  this  light,  the  “ field  ” of  the 
Amalekite  descendants  of  Edom  in  the  earlier  record  is  the  same  as  the  “ field  ” of 
the  ancestor  of  the  Amalekites  in  the  later  story. 


100 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


Various  references  to  the  boundary  limits  of  Canaan,  in  the 
Bible  text,  go  to  show  that  the  southern  line  of  the  Land  of 
Promise  ran  along  the  western  portion  of  Edom  proper.  In  de- 
scribing that  line,  as  it  passes  southeasterly  from  the  Dead  Sea 
starting-point  into  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  or  the  ?Azazimeh  moun- 
tain tract  (running  along  the  Wady  Feqreh,  which  marks  the 
natural  boundary  of  Palestine1),  the  record  is,  that  it  shall  be 
“from  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  along  by  the  coast  of  Edom 2 or 
“from  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  which  resteth  upon  the  side  of 
Edom.” 3 Again  it  is  said  that  “ the  uttermost  [or  lower  border] 
cities  of  the  children  of  Judah  toward  the  coast  of  Edom  south- 
ward [or  Negebward],”4  stretched  along  as  far  westward  as  Beer- 
sheba — the  old  home  of  Esau-Edom.  All  this  Js  utterly  incom- 
patible with  the  limitations  of  Edom  to  the  region  east  of  the 
’Arabah,  but  quite  consistent  with  every  other  indication  of  the 
westward  reach  of  Edom  into  the  ’Azazimeh,  or  Muqrah,  mountain 
tract  on  the  west  of  the  ’Arabah,  from  the  very  earliest  mention 
of  that  country  until  its  final  annihilation  as  a distinct  power 
among  the  peoples  of  the  world. 

That  the  name  Edom,  in  its  Greek  form  “ Idumea,”  extended 
over  the  upper  desert  south  of  Palestine  in  the  later  centuries 

1 Observe  the  opinions  of  Williams,  Rowlands,  Palmer,  and  others  on  this  point, 
at  pages  95-97,  supra. 

2 See  Num.  34 : 1 ; Josh.  15  : 1. 

3 Speaker’s  Commentary  rendering.  Fries  (in  Stud.  u.  Krit.  for  1854,  p.  77)  has 

shown  that * al-yedhee  in  Num.  34  : 3,  rendered  in  the  King  James  Version 

“along  by  the  coast  of,”  does  not,  like  ’al-yadh  (T"Sj 7), — as  in  Exod.  2 : 5 ; Josh. 
15:  46;  2 Sam.  15 : 2 ; Dan.  10:  14, — signify  contact  at  a single  point,  or  along  a 
short  distance;  but  means  “ along  the  land  of,”  “ on  a long,  yea,  the  whole  stretch,” 
as  for  instance  in  Judges  11 : 26.  This  fact  in  itself  would  seem  sufficient  to  show 
that  peath  (^p),  “ quarter  of,”  in  Num.  34 : 3,  cannot  in  this  instance  (as  some 
have  claimed)  mean  “ corner  of,”  if  indeed  it  ever  could  have  that  meaning  in  a land 
boundary. 


* Josh.  15  : 21-28. 


THE  BORDER  OF  EDOM. 


101 


before  the  Christian  era,  and  subsequently,  is  abundantly  shown 
by  references  to  it  in  the  Apocrypha,  the  Talmud,  and  the  writings 
of  Pliny,  Josephus,  Ptolemy,  Jerome,  and  others.1  Diodorus 
Siculus,  indeed,  speaks  of  the  Dead  Sea  as  in  the  centre  of  the 
satrapy  of  Idumea.2  And,  as  has  been  already  noted,  all  the 
geographers  down  to  the  days  of  Reland  were  at  one  on  this  point. 
So  far  there  is  no  dispute.  The  only  question  raised  by  any 
scholar  is,  whether  the  westward  stretch  of  Edom  beyond  the 
’Arabah  was  prior  to  the  period  of  Judah’s  captivity.3  Yet  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  favor  of  the  westward 
limitation  of  ancient  Edom  by  the  bounds  of  the  ’Arabah,  at  any 
period  whatsoever ; while  both  the  Bible  text  and  the  Egyptian 
records  give  proof  that  there  was  no  such  limitation  in  the  days  of 
the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

As  yet,  the  precise  limits  of  ancient  Edom,  westward,  cannot  be 
designated  with  confidence.  It  is  probable,  judging  from  what  we 
know  of  ancient  boundaries  generally,  that  these  limits  were  con- 
formed to  some  marked  natural  features  of  the  country.  When 
the  Azazimeh,  or  Muqrah,  mountain  tract  shall  have  been  care- 
fully explored,  such  natural  features  may  be  there  shown  for  the 
marking  of  the  western  border  of  Edom,  as  have  already  been 
pointed  out  for  the  southern  border  of  Canaan.  Holland  had  this 
in  his  mind  on  the  occasion  of  his  latest  visit  to  the  desert ; but 
the  same  causes  which  prevented  his  following  up  the  search  for 


1 See  Reland’s  Pa/.,  pp.  66-73;  Robinson’s  “Sketches  of  Idumea,”  Bib.  Repos,  for 
April,  1833,  p.  252/. ; Conder’s  Art.,  “ Idumea,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  ed. ; Porter’s 
Art.,  “ Edom,”  in  Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die. 

2 “K ELrai  yap  Kara  peayv  tt/v  carpaTreiav  rijg  ’I dovpaiag.”  (Bk.  19,  chap.  96.) 

3 Dean  Stanley  says  ( Sinai  and  Pal.,  p.  94,  note) : “To  represent  Edom  as  extend- 
ing west  of  the  ’Arabah  in  the  time  of  Moses,  is  an  anachronism,  borrowed  from  the 
times  after  the  Captivity,  when  the  Edomites,  driven  from  their  ancient  seats, 
occupied  the  ‘South’  of  Judea  as  far  as  Hebron;  1 Macc.  5:  65.”  But  this 
charge  of  anachronism  will  hardly  rest  against  Moses  himself,  and  the  scribes  of 
Meneptah . 


102 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  stood  in  the  way  of  his  exploring  the 
region  in  question  for  the  settlement  of  Edom’s  boundary  line. 
Yet  he  made  a suggestion  which  may  yet  prove  a valuable  one. 
Finding  the  natural  break  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  that  great 
mountain  tract,  as  already  mentioned,1  he  was  led  to  believe  that 
the  wady-roadway  passing  up  northerly  through  the  mountains 
toward  the  southern  border  of  Palestine  “ formed  the  western 
boundary  of  Edom.”2  However  this  may  prove  to  be  in  the  light 
of  future  explorations,  it  is  evident  that  the  uttermost  border  of 
Edom  in  that  direction  lay  somewhere  within  that  mountain  tract ; 
and  that,  therefore,  Kadesh-barnea  was  also  there.3  And  this  is 
in  further  confirmation  of  all  that  we  have  before  learned  of 
the  probable  site  of  Kadesh. 


13.  A SWEEP  TO  GAZA. 

An  incidental  mention  of  Kadesh-barnea  as  a landmark  in 
Joshua’s  progress  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  will  be  seen  to  con- 
form very  well  with  the  other  indications  of  its  location.  Joshua 
had  captured  Lachish  and  Eglon  in  southwestern  Canaan.4  Then, 
pushing  eastward,  “ Joshua  went  up  from  Eglon,  and  all  Israel 
with  him,  unto  Hebron ; and  they  fought  against  it : and  they  took 
it.”5  And  so  the  old  home  of  their  ancestors,  with  the  graves  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  was  fairly  in  the  possession  of  the 
Israelites.  There  is  certainly  no  doubt  about  the  location  of 
Hebron.  That  site  is  fixed  beyond  a peradventure. 

And  from  Hebron  “ Joshua  returned,  and  all  Israel  with  him, 
to  Debir ; and  fought  against  it ; and  he  took  it,  and  the  king 
thereof,  and  all  the  cities  thereof  [all  the  enclosures,  or  strong- 

1  See  page  82  /,  supra. 

2  See  Holland’s  report  of  his  journey,  in  Report  of  Brit.  Assoc,  for  1878,  p.  622  jf. 

3  Num.  20 : 16.  4 Josh.  10 : 31-35. 


s Josh.  10:  36,  37. 


A SWEEP  TO  GAZA. 


103 


holds,1  thereof]  ; ...  as  he  had  done  to  Hebron,  so  he  did  to 
Debir.”  As  Joshua  had  been  moving  eastward  to  Hebron,  his 
return  from  Hebron  could  not  have  been  by  moving  farther  east- 
ward or  southeastward,  it  must  have  been  by  a westerly  or  a south- 
westerly course ; hence  Debir  (or,  Debeer)  is  to  be  sought  in  that 
direction  from  Hebron.  And  there  Debir  has  been  fairly 
identified. 

Debir  is  a noteworthy  place  on  many  accounts.  Its  more 
ancient  name  is  said  to  have  been  Kirjatli-sepher,2  or  Book-town, 
or  City  of  Books;3  and  again  Kirjath-sannah,4  or  City  of  Instruc- 
tion;5 indicating  its  prominence  as  a literary  and  religious  centre. 
Its  later  name,  Debir,6  is  a term  sometimes  applied  to  the  inner 
sanctuary  of  a temple,  or  the  seat  of  a sacred  oracle.  And  the 
reference  to  its  outlying  strongholds  [“  cities  and  to  its  excep- 
tionally secure  fastnesses,  would  seem  to  show  it  as  a military 
position  of  importance.  After  Joshua’s  first  capture  of  it,  it  seems 
to  have  been  retaken  by  the  sons  of  Anak,  or  other  formidable 

1 The  Hebrew  word  is  }eer  (Tjp),  an  “ enclosed  place,”  as  already  shown  (see  page 
83,  supra).  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  there  were  separate  “ cities  ” connected 
with  Debir ; but  it  is  probable  that  there  were  outlying  “ enclosures.” 

2 Josh.  10  : 38,  39 ; 15:  15 ; Judges  1 : 11. 

3 As  to  this  meaning  there  is  no  question.  See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  vv.  “ Qir- 
jath,”  “Sepher.” 

4 Josh.  15 :49. 

5 Grove  (Smith -Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “Debir”)  and  Thomson  (South.  Pal., 
Land  and  Book),  and  some  others,  render  this  “ City  of  the  Palm ; ” but  Schroder 
(Die  Phonizische  Sprache,  p.  8,  note)  shows  its  most  probable  meaning  as  “ City  of 
the  Law ; ” as  the  Arabic  sinnah,  “ the  Law,”  would  indicate.  The  Septuagint 
translates  both  names,  Qirjath-sepher  as  well  as  Qirjath-sannah,  by  “ City  of  Letters.” 
Nor  is  Schroder  alone  in  this  rendering. 

6 It  is  a word  from  a root  of  varied  significations.  See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v. 
“ Debeer.”  Its  root  meanings  include  “ behind,”  “ inner,”  “ to  speak,”  etc. ; 
hence  it  is  applied  to  the  inner  sanctuary  of  a temple  (see  1 Kings  6 : 5,  19,  22 ; 
8 : 6-8 ; 2 Chron.  3 : 16 ; 4 : 7-9) ; or  again  to  the  oracle  speaking  from  the  sanc- 
tuary. 


104 


KADESII-BA  RNEA. 


inhabitants  of  Canaan;1  for  it  was  then  that  Caleb  deemed  it  a 
prize  worthy  of  the  best  efforts  of  the  most  heroic,  and  said  : “ He 
that  smiteth  Kirjath-sepher,  and  taketh  it,  to  him  will  I give 
Achsah  my  daughter  to  wife.” 2 And  Othniel,  who  took  the  city 
and  won  its  reward,  was  afterwards  a judge  of  Israel,3  while  his 
city  became  a city  of  the  priests.4 

Various  sites  have  been  suggested  for  ancient  Debir ; nearly  all 
of  them,  however,  within  a few  miles  range,  and  all  of  them  westerly 
or  southwesterly  of  Hebron.5  Of  late  the  identification  at  Dha- 
hareeyeh,  a somewhat  remarkable  village  on  the  road  from  Hebron 
to  Beersheba  has  gained  confidence,  and  now  has  general  accept- 
ance. Knobel 6 was  perhaps  the  first  to  point  to  this  identification, 
and  Conder,7  Tristram,8  and  Thomson,9  strengthened  its  claims  to 
approval.  Robinson,10  Wilson,11  Ritter,12  and  Palmer,13  had,  before 
this,  emphasized  the  importance  of  the  site  of  the  ruins  of  Dhaha- 
reeyeh.  It  is  at  the  junction  of  the  two  great  roads ; that  from 
Hebron  to  Gaza,  and  that  from  Hebron  to  the  desert  and  to 
Egypt — the  “ Way  of  Shur.”  “ A castle  or  fortress  apparently 
once  stood  here,”  says  Robinson ; “ the  remains  of  a square 
tower  are  still  to  be  seen,  now  used  as  a dwelling;  and  the 
doorways  of  many  hovels  are  of  hewn  stone  with  arches.  It 
would  seem  to  have  been  one  of  the  line  of  small  fortresses, 
which  apparently  once  existed  all  along  the  southern  border  of 
Palestine.” 

It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  to  the  present  day  Dhahareeyeh  is 
counted  the  border  town  of  Palestine.  The  Teeyahah  Arabs  who 


1 Comp.  Josh.  10:  38,  39,  and  Josh.  15 : 13-15. 

2 Josh.  15  : 16,  17.  3 Judges  3 : 9-11.  4 Josh.  21 : 9-15. 

6 Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.,  “Debir”;  Schajff  Lange  Com.  at  Josh.  10:  38. 

6 As  cited  in  Lange,  as  above.  7 Tent  Work  in  Pal.,  II.,  93. 

8 Bible  Places , p.  61.  9 South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book),  p.  299/. 

“ Bib.  Res.,  I.,  209-11.  11  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  349-354. 

72  Geog.  of  Pal.,  III.,  193,  288  /.  13  Dcs.  of  Exod.,  II.,  394-396. 


A SWEEP  TO  GAZA. 


105 


convoy  the  traveler  from  Castle  Nakhl  toward  Hebron  are  unable 
to  carry  him  by  Dhahareeyeh  ; unless,  indeed,  a new  agreement  is 
made  at  that  point,  by  the  payment  for  Dhahareeyeh  horses  to 
Hebron,  at  an  added  cost  beyond  the  hire  of  the  Teeyahah  camels. 
As  Ritter  states  it1:  “ The  first  place  of  any  importance  in  Pales- 
tine is  the  village  ed-Dhoheriyeh,  five  or  six  hours  southwest  of 
Hebron  [Robinson  called  it  four  hours.  I found  it  about  four  and 
a half].  It  derives  its  interest  from  the  fact  that  here  converge 
the  west  road  leading  through  Wadi  es-Seba  and  Beersheba,  the 
great  highway  to  Gaza  and  Egypt,  and  the  great  eastern  road  from 
Petra  and  Sinai.”  Palmer2  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  “ Mur- 
ray’s Handbook”3  says  of  this  important  site:  “ There  is  nothing 
here  either  to  interest  or  detain  the  traveler  ; ” and  he  adds  : “ But 
...  we  found  it,  on  the  contrary,  a very  interesting  place.  The 
dwellings  consist  for  the  most  part  of  caves  cut  in  the  natural  rock, 
some  of  them  having  rude  arches  carved  over  the  doorways,  and 
all  of  them  being  of  great  antiquity.  . . They  are  exactly  like 
what  the  old  Horite  dwellings  must  have  been,  and  have  doubtless 
been  inhabited  by  generation  after  generation,  since  the  days  of  that 
now  forgotten  race.” 

Conder  and  Thomson  would  find  a resemblance  in  the  meanings 
of  Dhahareeyeh  and  Debeer.  The  latter  says  : “ The  Arabic  name, 
edh-Dhoheriyeh,  may  be  translated  i ridge , or  ‘ promontory/  and 
hence  this  signification  corresponds  with  its  position,  and  also  with 
the  meaning  of  the  word.”4  Yet  Robinson  (or  Eli  Smith5)  ren- 
ders the  word  as  (i  noon.”  In  fact  the  Arabic  root  of  this  word  is 
as  varied  in  its  significations  as  its  Hebrew  correspondent,  Debeer. 
It  means  “ back,”  “ behind,”  u backbone,”  61  ridge,”  “ road  through 
the  desert,”  “ summer-noon,”  “ to  conquer,”  “ to  disclose,”  etc.6 

1 Geog.  of  Pal.,  III.,  193.  2 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  39/.  3 Syria  and  Pal.,  p.  99. 

4 South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book),  p.  300.  5 Bib.  Res.,  III.,  208,  first  ed. 

6 See  Freytag’s  Lex.  Arab.  Lot s.  v.  -g  b>. 


106 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Hence,  while  the  correspondence  of  name  is  not  such  as  to  be  in  itself 
conclusive,  there  is  enough  else  to  render  it  more  than  probable 
that  the  important  site  of  Dhahareeyeh  is  also  the  site  of  the  im- 
portant ancient  Debir  ; and  a similarity  in  the  names  can  easily  be 
found.  Yet  Dhahareeyeh  as  it  is  to-day,  with  its  mud  walls,  and 
its  wretched  people,  its  multitude  of  dogs,  and  its  many  myriads 
of  fleas,  has  little  to  suggest  the  military  stronghold,  the  literary 
centre,  the  sacred  metropolis,  which  once  existed  there.  But 
herein  is  an  illustrative  contrast  between  the  Land  of  Promise  as 
it  was,  and  as  it  is. 

And  from  Hebron  to  Debir  and  beyond,  Joshua  swept  on  in  his 
conquering  march.  “ So  Joshua  smote  all  of  the  hills  [the  hill- 
country  of  Judah],  and  of  the  south  [the  Negeb],  and  of  the  vale 
[the  Shephelah],  and  of  the  springs  [‘  the  upper  springs  and  the 
nether  springs/  which  were  added  to  Achsah’s  dowry  (Josh.  15 : 
17-19),  near  Debir].  . . . And  Joshua  smote  them  from  Kadesh- 
barnea  even  unto  Gaza.” 1 The  only  consistent  explanation  of  this 
statement  is,  that  Joshua  moved  along  southwesterly  from  Hebron 
to  Debir  and  Kadesh-barnea ; from  Hebron  to  the  southernmost 
point  of  the  southern  boundary-line  of  Canaan,2  and  thence  onward 
toward  Gaza  and  the  sea-coast.  And  this  explanation  coincides 
with  all  that  has  before  been  shown  as  to  the  location  of  Kadesh- 
barnea. 

14.  THE  PROMISED  LAND’S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY. 

And  now  for  the  various  mentions  of  Kadesh-barnea  as  a boun- 
dary-line landmark  in  the  Bible  story.  Both  in  the  incidental  refer- 
ences to,  and  in  the  detailed  descriptions  of,  the  southern  boundary 
of  the  Promised  Land  as  a whole,  and  again  of  the  possessions  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  (before  the  portion  of  Simeon  was  taken  from 
them),  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea  conforms  to  the  indica- 


* Josh.  10 : 40,  41. 


2 Num.  34 : 4. 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY.  107 


tions  already  noted,  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  fixed  yet  more 
definitely. 

In  Numbers  34:  3-5,  Moses  declares,  from  Jehovah,  to  the 
Israelites : “ Your  south  quarter  [or,  side]  shall  be  [or,  extend] 
from  the  Wilderness  of  Zin  along  by  the  coast  [or,  boundary]  of 
Edom  [or,  which  resteth  upon  the  side  of  Edom].”  This  general 
statement  of  the  southern  boundary  line  is  followed  by  a closer 
description  of  its  salient  points.  “ And  your  south  border  shall 
be  [or,  shall  start  from]  the  outmost  coast  [or,  the  extremity]  of 
the  Salt  Sea  [the  Dead  Sea]  eastward  [or,  on  the  east]  ; and  your 
border  shall  turn  from  [or,  on]  the  south  to  [or,  of]  the  Ascent  of 
Akrabbim,  and  [shall]  pass  on  to  Zin  [or,  Zin  ward] ; and  the 
going  forth  thereof  shall  be  from  the  south  [or,  the  extent  of  its 
reach  on  the  south  shall  be]  to  Kadesh-barnea  [or,  south  of 
Kadesh-barnea],  and  shall  go  on  [or,  shall  reach  forth  thence]  to 
Hazar-addar  [or,  the  village,  or  settlement,  of  ’Addar],  and  shall 
pass  on  to  Azmon  [or,  ’Azmon  ward] ; and  the  border  shall  fetch 
a compass  from  Azmon  unto  [or,  from  ’Azmon  the  border  shall 
turn  to]  the  river  of  Egypt  [or,  Wady-of-Egypt-ward],  and 
the  goings  out  of  it  shall  be  at  [or,  its  reach  shall  be  to]  the 
[Mediterranean]  Sea  [or,  seaward].” 

In  Joshua  15  : 1-4,  this  southern  boundary  line1  is  re-described 
with  more  particularity : “ To  the  border  [or,  boundary]  of  Edom, 
the  wilderness  of  Zin  southward  was  [or,  as]  the  uttermost  part 
of  the  south  coast.”  Or,  as  some  would  read  this : “ On  the 
south,  to  the  border  of  Edom  [their  boundary  was],  the  wilderness 
of  Zin,  from  the  extremity  of  Teman.” 2 This  general  descrip- 
tion is  followed,  as  in  Numbers,  by  a detailed  one  : “ And  their 

1 The  southern  boundary  of  Judah  was  also  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Land  of 
Promise  as  a whole. 

2 So,  the  Arabic  translator  and  Houbigant,  as  quoted  and  followed  by  Geddes,  in 
his  Revision,  in  loco  ; also  the  Latin  Revision  of  Sebastian  Schmidt.  This  point  will 
be  fully  considered  farther  on. 


108 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


south  border  [or  southern  boundary]  was  from  the  shore  [or,  end] 
of  the  Salt  Sea,  from  the  bay  [or,  tongue]  that  looketh  [or,  turn- 
eth,  or,  bendeth]  southward  [or,  Negeb  ward]  ; and  it  went  out  to 
the  south  side  to  Maaleh-acrabbim  [or,  to  the  southern  boundary  of 
the  Ascent  of  ’Acrabbim],  and  passed  along  to  Zin  [or,  Zinward], 
and  ascended  up  on  the  south  side  unto  [or,  along  the  south  of] 
Kadesh-barnea,  and  passed  along  [or,  over]  to  Hezron,  and  went 
up  to  Adar,  and  fetched  a compass  [or,  turned  itself  ] to  Karkaa ; 
from  thence  it  passed  toward  Azmon  [or,  ’Azmonward],  and  went 
out  unto  the  river  [or  wady]  of  Egypt ; and  the  goings  out  of 
that  coast  [or,  the  terminations  of  the  boundary]  were  at  the  Sea 
[or,  were  seaward].”1 

Now  let  us  follow  out  this  boundary  line  description  in  the 
light  of  present  knowledge  of  the  region  in  question.  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  this  is  the  southern  boundary,  not  the  eastern 
one ; hence  it  must  be  understood  as  running,  or  inclining,  wes- 
terly from  its  very  start.  The  eastern  boundary  of  the  Promised 
Land  ends  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea  ; 2 and  there 
the  southern  boundary  begins  its  westerly  course. 

The  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  not  a fixed  point ; for  the  ex- 
tension of  water  in  that  direction  varies  greatly  at  different  times  ; 3 

1 From  the  very  nature  of  the  Hebrew  language,  the  original  description  of  this 

boundary  line  is  somewhat  vague  in  its  phrasing ; but  not  so  as  seriously  to  becloud 
its  meaning.  The  alternative  readings  given  above  are  all  justified  by  competent 
scholars;  most  of  them,  indeed,  are  quite  generally  agreed  on;  as  maybe  seen  by  re- 
ferring to  the  Septuagint,  Critici  Sacri,  Pool’s  Synop.  of  Crit.,  Speaker’s  Com., 
Schaff-Lange  Com.,  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.  Knobel’s  Exeget.  Handb ., 
Horsley’s  Bib.  Crit.,  Geddes’,  Sharpe’s, Wellbeloved’s  and  Leeser’s  Revisions,  Bush’s 
Notes  on  Num.,  Crosby’s  Notes  on  Josh.,  etc.  2 Num.  34  : 10-12  ; Josh.  15  : 5. 

3 Lieut.  Lynch  ( Expedition  to  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea,  p.  309)  says:  “ The  southern 
end  of  the  sea  ...  is  ever  varying,  extending  south  from  the  increased  flow  of  the 
Jordan,  and  the  efflux  of  the  torrents  in  winter,  and  receding  with  the  rapid  evapor- 
ation, consequent  upon  the  heat  of  summer.” 

See  also  Irby  and  Mangles’s  Travels,  p.  353  /. ; Van  de  Velde’s  Syrien  u.  Pal.,  II., 
136/.;  Tristram’s  Land  of  Israel,  pp.  300,  331,  337. 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUND AR  Y.  109 


but  it  is  sufficiently  definite  for  a starting  point  of  an  exten- 
sive boundary  line.1  Leaving  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  the  boundary  line  moves  westerly.  The  first  landmark  noted 
in  that  direction  is  a hill  range  designated  as  the  Ascent  of 
’Akrabbim ; or  the  Ascent,  or  the  Pass,  of  Scorpions,  as  it  is  com- 
monly understood.  Looking  westerly  from  the  southern  end  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  what  range  would  seem  to  meet  the  requirement  of 
this  designation?  South  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  a distance  of  eight 
miles,  more  or  less,  is  a “ line  of  cliffs  crossing  the  whole  Ghor,  and 
constituting  merely  the  ascent  to  the  higher  plane  of  the  ’Arabah;”2 
or,  possibly  forming  a natural  barrier  to  the  encroaching  waters  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  at  their  greatest  height.3  “ In  the  absence  of  any 
better  suggestion,”  Robinson  was  “ inclined  to  regard  ” this  cliff- 
range  as  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim ; and  in  this  suggested  identifi- 
cation, as  in  many  another,  Robinson  has  been  generally  followed 
by  subsequent  writers.  But  this  low  line  of  cliffs,  this  mere 
basin-wall,4  is  directly  south  of  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  if,  indeed,  it  is  not  itself  the  boundary  of  the  tongue  of 
that  sea ; and  it  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  line  of  a southern 

1 De  Saulcy  ( Dead  Sea,  I.,  250/.)  would  identify  the  peninsula  on  the  east  shore  of 

the  Dead  Sea,  which  is  known  as  El-Lisan  (the  Tongue),  with  “ the  tongue  that  turn- 
eth  southward  ” in  this  description.  But  although  the  name  itself  would  seem  to 
give  weight  to  this  suggestion,  Grove  has  pointed  out  (in  Smith-HacJcett  Bib.  Die., 
Art.  “Salt  Sea”)  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  word  lashon  here  rendered 

“ tongue,”  is  in  two  other  instances  (Josh.  15  : 5;  18 : 19)  applied  to  the  upper  end  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  clearly  means  a tongue  of  water,  not  of  land  ; also  that  the  term 
“ Lisan  ” is  probably  given  to  only  the  southern  portion  of  the  peninsula  which 
verges  on  the  tongue  of  the  sea  southward.  In  Isaiah  11 : 15,  lashon  is  applied  to 
the  “ tongue  ” or  arm  of  “ the  Egyptian  sea.”  Thus  we  see  that  in  the  three  places 
where  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the  Bible  text  is  obvious,  it  is  applied  to  a tongue 
of  water;  and  it  is  certainly  fair  to  give  it  that  meaning  in  the  fourth  instance. 

2 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  120.  3 See  Irby  and  Mangles’s  Travels,  p.  353. 

4 Indeed  if  the  Dead  Sea  were  at  its  greatest  height,  these  “cliffs”  would  be 
at  the  water’s  edge;  and  then  what  would  the  “scorpions”  do  for  a climbing 

place  ? 


110 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


boundary.  It  would  certainly  be  well  to  look  for  a “ better  sug- 
gestion/’ 1 

It  has  already  been  shown2  that  the  apparent  natural  boundary 
of  Canaan,  or  Palestine,  on  the  south,  is  the  mountain-range  which 
forms  the  northern  wall  of  Wady  Feqreh  ; “the  Bald  Mountain 
that  goeth  up  to  Seir.”3  It  is  certainly  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
this  natural  boundary  is  designated  in  this  instance,  as  in  the 
other,4  in  the  description  of  the  southern  coast  of  the  Land  of 
Promise ; especially  when  the  description  here  accurately  conforms 
to  this  prominent  landmark. 

To  one  looking  from  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,5  the 
open  mouth  of  this  Wady  Feqreh  shows  itself  prominently, — in  a 
southwesterly  direction, — between  the  southern  end  of  Khashm 
Usdum  (the  Hill  of  Sodom,  sometimes  called  the  Salt  Mountain,) 
on  the  right  hand,  and  the  northern  or  northwestern  end  of  the 
low  basin-wall  to  which  Robinson  has  called  attention,  on  the  left 
hand.  A southern  boundary-line,  which  is  to  run  westerly,  and 
which  is  to  pass  south  of,6  rather  than  over,  the  designated  Ascent 
of  ’Akrabbim,  would  therefore  properly  be  supposed  to  enter  this 
great  dividing  wady,  which  runs  south  of  the  already  recognized 

1 A crowning  illustration  of  Robinson’s  controlling  influence  over  modern  scholar- 
ship in  his  field,  is  given  in  his  ability  to  induce  so  many  to  accept  his  suggestion  that 
a southern  boundary  runs  north  and  south.  The  English-speaking  world  has  been 
almost  a unit  on  this  point  since  he  made  the  suggestion  as  his  only  way  of  adapting 
the  Bible  record  to  his  site  of  Kadesh-barnea ; although  he  did  not  even  proffer  an 
argument  in  its  support. 

2 See  pages  95-97,  supra.  3 Josh.  11 : 17 ; 12 : 7. 

4 The  references  to  this  mountain-wall,  in  Joshua,  would  seem  to  indicate  it  as  the 

southern  limit  of  “ all  that  land,  the  hills,  and  all  the  South  Country.” 

5 See  the  Map  of  Dead  Sea,  in  Tristram’s  Land  of  Israel. 

6 Keil  and  Delitzsch  {Bib.  Com.,  IV.  151)  render  Joshua  15:  3,  “ To  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim.’’  See,  also  Schaff-Lange  Bib.  Com.,  in  loco. 
Horsley  {Bib.  Grit.)  renders  Num.  34:  4,  “ And  your  southern  border  shall  go  round 
by  the  Hills  of  Scorpions.”  Geddes  (Revision)  renders  it,  '•  Winding  about  the  south 
side  of  Akrabbim.” 


THE  PR  OMISED  LAND'S  SO  UTHERN  B 0 TJNDAR  Y.  Ill 


southern  coast-wall  of  the  land  to  be  bounded.  In  this  case,  the 
Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  might  be  looked  for  along  the  northern  wall 
of  Wady  Feqreh — the  Bald  Mountain  wall.  The  Pass  es-Sufah, 
already  named  as  a principal  pass  of  that  wall-rampart,  has  been 
suggested,1  with  some  show  of  probability,  as  the  Ascent  of 
’Akrabbim  ;2  yet  the  more  westerly  Pass  el- Yemen,  up  the  same 
hillside,  has,  perhaps,  superior  claims  to  this  identification,  both  in 
its  position  and  in  its  name — as  will  be  seen  in  its  farther  exami- 
nation. It  is  possible  that  in  the  days  of  the  exodus  the  range  as 
a whole  was  known  as  the  Mount  Halak,  and  its  westerly  pass  as 
the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim. 

Even  the  word  “ ’Akrabbim  ” may  have  had  reference  to  the 
characteristics  of  the  Ascent,  or  Pass,  or  Maaleh ; characteristics 
which  are  evident  to-day  as  always.  The  word  is  commonly 
translated  “ Scorpions,”  and  the  suggestion  is  that  scorpions 
abounded  there.  But  while  the  Hebrew  root  is  not  entirely  clear, 
it  seems  to  have  the  idea  of  “ wounding  the  heel,” 3 which  is  the 
work  of  both  the  scorpion  and  the  serpent ; 4 and  from  that  point 
the  Plebrew  root  and  its  Arabic  correspondents  run  out  into 
various  meanings,  including  “ scorpion,”  “scourge,”  “striking,” 
“ cutting  off,”  “ centre,”  “ defile,”  “ mountain  pass.”  It  was  long 
ago  suggested  that  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  was  rather  a descrip- 
tive designation  than  a proper  name ; that  it  indicated  a serpentine 
or  sinuous  ascent ; a way  that  winds  and  twists  scorpion-like.5  It 

1 See  Rowlands,  in  Imp.  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.,  “ Moserah  ” ; Knobel’s  Exeget.  Handb., 
at  Josh.  15 : 3 : and  Speaker's  Com.,  at  Num.  34 : 4. 

2 The  reference  to  “ Akrabattine,”  in  Idumea,  in  1 Mace.  5 : 3,  would  seem  to  cor- 
respond with  this  view. 

3 Gesenius,  (Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  u'Aqrab")  thinks  that  it  is  “compounded  from  ’ aqar 

ppT)  ‘to  wound,’  and  ’ aqeb  ‘heel.’” 

4 “ Thou  shalt  bruise  his  [man’s]  heel,”  is  God’s  prophecy  to  the  serpent  in  Eden 
(Gen.  3 : 15.) 

5 See  citations  in  Pool’s  Synops.  Crit.,  from  Vatablus,  Emanuel  Sa,  and  Mariana, 
of  say  three  centuries  ago.  Fiirst  ( Heb . and  Chald.  Lex.,  s.  v.  “ ’Aqrab  ”)  finds  the 
idea  of  a sinuous  course  in  the  word  itself. 


112 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


is  a noteworthy  fact  that  Robinson  says1  of  a*  similar  difficult 
ascent  at  another  point : “ The  ascent  is  called  simply  en-Yuldb,  or 
el-’Arkub,  both  signifying  ‘the  pass’  up  a mountain;  and  our 
guides  knew  no  other  name.  The  road  rises  by  zig-zags  along  the 
projecting  point  of  a steep  ridge,  between  two  deep  ravines.”  The 
word  ’Arkub,  or  ’Arqoob,  here  used,  is  apparently  from  the  same 
root  as  ’aqrab.  Its  meaning  is  given 2 not  only  as  “ a tortuous 
wady  course,”  and  u a mountain  defile,”3  but  as  the  proper  name  of 
an  Amalekite  “ celebrated  for  breaking  and  eluding  his  promises  ” 
— slipping  and  twisting  from  the  straight  way  of  veracity.4 

This  Pass  el-Yemen  is  the  more  commonly  used  pass,  up  the 
Bald  Mountain  border  of  Palestine.  It  was  described  first,  in 
modern  times,  by  Seetzen,5  in  1807.  Robinson6  says  of  it,  in 
comparison  with  the  two  passes  eastward  of  it : “ Of  the  three 
passes,  that  of  Es-Sufah  is  the  most  direct ; but  that  of  El-Yemen, 
though  the  way  is  longer,  is  more  used  on  account  of  the  water  at 
the  top ; ” good  water  being  there  found  in  unfailing  supply  : and 
of  course  a water  supply  vmuld  always  give  the  pre-eminenee  to  a 
pass  on  the  desert  border.  The  location  of  the  Pass  el-Yemen  is, 
northward,  over  against  the  supposed  westerly  stretch  of  the  land 
of  Edom,7  or  the  Dukedom  of  Ternan,8  and  its  Arabic  name,  El- 


1 Bib,  Res.,  I.,  175.  2 Freytag’s  Lex.  Arab.  Lat.,  s.  v. 

3 There  is  apparently  a root  connection  with  this  word  ’Arqoob,  in  the  name 
’Aqaba,  meaning  “a  descent  or  steep  declivity,”  which  is  applied  to  “the  long  and 
difficult  descent  of  the  Haj  route  from  the  western  mountain”  toward  the  gulf  which 
has  received  the  name  ’Aqabah  from  this  reason.  (See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I., 

171;  Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Pal.,  pp.  10,  84;  Winer’s  Bib.  Realworterb.,  s.  v.  “Elath.”) 

4 Pococke  ( Descrip . of  East,  II.,  1, 123)  refers  to  the  “Acrabane  or  Serpentine  River, 
which  goes  out  of  the  Barrady  in  the  field  of  Damascus.”  And  this  mention  is  noted 
by  Koehler  in  his  annotations  to  Ibn  ol  Wardi’s  “De  Terra  Syriae,”  (in  Abulfeda’s 
Tab.  Syr.,  p.  175.)  The  river  referred  to  is  Nahr  el-Aqrabiini  (See  Baedeker’s  Pal. 
and  Syr.,  p.  48.) 

5 Reisen  III.,  7-14;  also  in  Zach’s  monatl.  Corr.  XVII.,  pp.  133-138,  as  cited  by 

Robinson.  6 Bib.  Res.  II.,  182. 

7 See  pages,  100-102,  supra.  8 See  page  107,  supra ; also  Gen.  36  : 9-15. 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SO  UTHERN  B 0 UNDAR  Y 113 


Yemen  (“  the  right  hand/’)  has  a meaning  correspondent  with  the 
Hebrew  name  Teman  (“at  the  right  hand.”)  Moreover,  it  is  just 
southward  of  that  Pass  el- Yemen  that  a turn  would  naturally  be 
made  in  a boundary  line  that  had  followed  the  border  of  Edom 
and  was  to  hinge  for  a yet  more  southerly  stretch  in  its  onward 
sweep ; for  standing  out  all  by  itself  in  the  wady  which  is  being 
followed  as  the  boundary  line,  or  rather  at  the  confluence  of  two 
other  wadies  with  that  one,  there  is  a notable  mountain,  Jebel 
Madurah,  around  the  northwestern  side  of  which  the  boundary 
line  would  turn  to  move  on  to  its  southernmost  point,  conformably 
to  the  directions  already  quoted  from  the  Bible  text.  As  it  is  the 
boundary  line  of  Canaan  which  is  being  described,  the  turning 
point  is  naturally  noted  on  the  Canaan  line  rather  than  on  the 
mountain  below  it;  but  the  one  conforms  to  the  other. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  there  seems  to  be  a trace  of  the  old  name 
’Akrabbim  still  attached  to  the  Pass  el- Yemen.  Wilson,1  who 
went  up  the  Pass  el-Yemen  understood  from  the  Arabs  that  its 
name  was  “Wadi  er-Rakib,”  although  he  afterwards  thought  that 
they  might  have  said  “Arkub.”  But  Robinson 2 had  before  this 
been  told  of*  a Pass  er-Rakib  in  that  direction,  although  he  did  not 
find  it,  or  learn  more  about  it.  In  either  form  of  the  word 3 there 
is  an  apparent  trace  of  the  name  ’Akrabbim. 

This  Pass  el-Yemen,  or  er-Rakib,  or  Arqoob,  is  described4  as 
“ a deep  rent  ” in  the  western  end  of  the  lofty  Bald  Mountain,5  a 

1 Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  341.  2 Bib.  Res.  I.,  208. 

3 The  transposition  of  consonants  is  very  common  in  Semitic  languages ; so  that 
often  an  anagram  fairly  gives  a trace  of  a word  which  can  be  formed  of  its  conso- 
nants. On  this  point,  see  Rodiger-Davidson’s  Gesenius's  Heb.  Gram.,  chap.  II., 
§ 19  (5.)  Nor  is  the  substitution  of  a Kaf  (as  in  Rakib)  for  a Qaf  (as  in  ’Arqoob)  at 
all  uncommon. 

4 Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.  II.,  178-182. 

5 “Here  [at  this  chasm,  El-Yemen]  the  higher  portion  of  the  ridge  [of  the  barrier 
wall  of  Palestine]  may  be  said  to  terminate ; for  although  it  continues  to  run  on  far 
to  the  southwest,  yet  it  is  there  lower  and  less  steep.”  (Robinson’s  Bib.  Res., 
II.,  178.) 

8 


114 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


u chasm  ” which  u cleaves  the  mountain  to  its  base.”  The  u as- 
cent” enters  a the  gorge  of  Wady  el-Yemen;  and  following  it  up 
for  a time,  then  climbs  the  wall  of  rock  by  a steep  and  difficult 
path.  Seetzen1  describes  this  wady  as  a frightfully  wild,  deep, 
and  desert  valley,  strewed  with  large  rocks  so  thickly,  that  it  is 
often  difficult  to  find  a way  between  them.”  And  if  that  is  not  a 
description  of  a smitten,  riven,  tortuous,  treacherous,  heel-wound- 
ing Maaleh  ’Akrabbim,  it  would  be  difficult  to  frame  one. 

At  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim,  as  has  been  already  noted 
the  boundary  line  is  said  to  “turn,”  or  hinge,2  and  pass  on  Zin- 
ward.3  In  other  words,  the  line  still  running  westerly,  takes  a more 
southerly 4 bearing  from  the  part  of  this  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim,  and 
passes  onward  into  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain5  tract  until  it  reaches 
Kadesh-barnea,  which  is  the  extent  of  its  southern  reach  — “ the 
southernmost  point  of  the  southern  boundary.”6  At  the  southern- 
most point  there  must  be,  of  course,  another  turn — north  of  west- 
erly— if  the  line  be  continued ; and  we  are  told  that  from  Kadesh- 


1 In  Zach’s  Monatl.  Corr.  XVII.,  p.  134  /. ; also  Bertou,  in  Bull,  de  la  Soc.  Geog., 
June  1839,  p.  323 ; both  cited  by  Robinson  as  above. 

2 The  Hebrew  word  sabhabh  in  Numbers  34:  4,  translated  “turn,”  means 

to  turn  as  on  a hinge  (See  Gesenius’s  Ileb.  Lex.  s.  v.). 

3 See  page  107  f,  supra. 

The  alternative  rendering  “from  the  extremity  of  Teman,”  as  the  starting  point  of 
the  Zinward  turn,  referred  to  at  page  107  /,  supra,  is  more  appropriately  considered  in 
connection  with  the  restatement  of  the  southern  boundary  in  Ezekiel,  as  treated  far- 
ther on  in  this  work. 

4 Keil  and  Delitzsch  {Bib.  Com.,  III.,  251/,)  argue  that  a point  farther  south  than 
Wady  Feqreh  was  the  exit  from  the  ’Arabah  of  this  boundary  line,  on  the  ground 
that  the  “turn,”  or  hinge,  at  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  must  have  been  from  a south- 
erly direction  to  a more  westerly  one.  But  they,  like  so  many  others  following  Rob- 
inson in  this,  have  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  southern  boundary  line  of 
the  Land  of  Promise  began  by  running  southward  instead  of  westerly.  The  line,  we 
may  take  it  for  granted,  started  westerly,  and  at  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  made  a 
turn  southerly.  A hinge  is  as  truly  a hinge  when  it  turns  from  right  to  left  as  when 
it  turns  from  left  to  right. 

5 See  page  70,/,  supra.  6 Speaker’s  Com.,  at  Num.  34:  4. 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY.  H5 


barnea  it  reaches  forth,  or  passes  along,  to  Hazar-addar,  and  thence 
to  ’Azmon,  and  on  to  the  river  (or  torrent)  of  Egypt — which  it 
follows  to  its  termination  at  the  Mediterranean  Sea ; the  coast  of 
that  sea  bounding  the  Land  of  Promise  on  the  west. 

The  “ River  of  Egypt,”  or  the  “ Torrent  of  Egypt,”  here  men- 
tioned is  not  the  Nile,  but  the  extended  water  course  now  known 
as  Wady  el-’Areesh,1  which  runs  northward  through  the  Desert  of 
the  Wanderings,  dividing  it  into  eastern  and  western  halves,2  or 
which,  more  properly,  may  be  said  to  separate  the  Desert  et-Teeh 
from  the  Desert  el-Jefar3 — the  Desert  of  the  Wanderings  on  the 
east,  from  the  Desert  of  Shur4  on  the  west.  Its  outlet  into  the 
Mediterranean  is  at  a point  a short  distance  south  of  a line  drawn 
due  west  from  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  The  Nile  was 
rather  the  centre  of  Egypt  than  its  boundary;  and  Egypt  was 
never  a part  of  the  Land  of  Promise.  But  the  Wady  el-’Areesh  is 
now  and  always  has  been  a recognized  northeasterly  boundary  line 
of  Egypt,  at  the  point  of  that  wady’s  outgoing,  into  the  Great  Sea. 
The  very  name  ’Areesh  means  “ boundary,”  or  “ extremity .” 5 

lc‘The  ‘Torrent  of  Egypt’  [D’HVO  bni  Nakhal  Mitsraim ];  by  which  name  is 
designated  a certain  brook,  dried  up  in  summer,  which  falls  into  the  sea  not  far  from 
[ancient]  Rhinocorura,  now  El  ’Areesh,  on  the  confines  of  Egypt  and 

Palestine.  [This  stream  is]  not  to  be  confounded  with  ( ^ Nehar  Mitsraim, 

the  River  of  Egypt;  that  is  the  Nile.”  (Rosenmiiller’s  Bib.  Alterth.,  III.,  65-77.) 

2 “ The  desert  is  divided  into  two  halves,  an  eastern  and  a western,  by  the  Wady  el- 
Arish  (called  in  the  Old  Testament 1 brook  of  Egypt/  by  the  Greeks,  ‘ Rhinokolura  ’) 
which  runs  completely  from  north  to  south.”  (Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  193.) 

3 “ The  Arabians  . . . strictly  distinguish  the  desert  Jefar  (^Lft:s».)  from  the  desert 

of  the  Children  of  Israel  CS'V  f°rmer  still  belongs  to  Egypt, 

and  its  boundaries  run  from  Rafah  (^*^)  the  P a<peia  of  Ptolemy,  V.  16.  6),  along 
the  bank  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  the  sea  Tennis  from  thence  to  the 

fruitful  meadows  of  the  Nile  valley  along  to  Kolzum,  and  by  the  Desert  et-Teeh, 
back  to  the  Mediterranean  (Tuch,  in  Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1848,  p.  88.) 

* See  page,  57  f,  supra. 

5 In  Coptic,  APH2£  (Thebaic),  or  AYPH2C  (Memphitic),  means  extremity, 
end,  tip,  etc.  The  first  of  these  forms  may  be  translated  Araj ; the  second  Aurdj  ; 
either  of  which  might  be  Arabicized  into  ’ Areesh , 


116 


KADESH-BAENEA. 


The  Septuagint  translators,  at  their  work  in  Egypt  twenty  centu- 
ries ago,  recognized  in  this  wady  the  torrent  which  separated 
Egypt  from  the  Land  of  Promise;1  and  the  latest  secular  writers 
on  Egypt  recognize  this  same  boundary  between  the  Egypt  and 
the  Palestine  of  to-day.2  The  Samaritans,  as  well  as  the  Jews, 
held  that  Wady  el-’Areesh  was  the  old-time  boundary  of  the  Land 
of  Promise  Egyptward;3  and  an  ancient  tradition  even  located  the 
original  division  of  the  countries  of  the  world  by  lot,  among  the 
sons  of  Noah  at  the  site  of  El-’Areesh.4  That  the  “ Torrent  of 
Egypt/’5  named  as  the  western  portion  of  the  southern  boundary 

1 In  the  Septuagint  Nakhal  Mitsraim  is  rendered : “Winter  torrent  of  Egypt  ” 
( Xeipappovv  Alyvirrov),  in  Num.  34:  5;  “Ravine  of  Egypt”  (4>apay£  Alyvirrov), 
in  Josh.  15:  4;  “River  of  Egypt”  ( norapoq  Alyvirrov),  in  1 Kings  8:  65;  and 
“ Rhinocoroura  ” (’P tvoKopovpa),  in  Isa.  27 : 12. 

Diodorus  (Bib.  Hist.,  Bk.  I.,  Chap.  60),  in  describing  the  origin  of  Rhinocoroura 
(Doclc-nose-town)  by  its  settlement  with  criminals  whose  noses  had  been  cut  off,  says 
distinctly : “ That  [town]  is  situated  on  the  common  boundary  line  of  Egypt  and 
Syria.’’  And  Diodorus  lived  more  than  half-way  back  from  our  day  to  Joshua’s. 

2 McCoan,  in  his  Egypt  As  It  Is  (p.  2),  says  : “ Egypt  proper  is  bounded  definitely 
enough  on  the  . . . east  by  a line  drawn  from  El-Arish  to  Akabah ; ” and  again 
(p.  65),  in  describing  the  former  place : “ In  size  merely  a fort  and  a village,  El- 
Arish  owes  its  rank  as  a mohafza  [having  a distinct  city  government]  to  its  position 
as  the  frontier  town  between  Syria  and  Palestine.  The  little  river  of  the  same  name 
[He  calls  it  a river,  as  our  translators  called  it],  which  here  forms  the  actual  boun- 
dary, is  dry  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  but  after  the  rains  it  empties  into  the 
Mediterranean  a tolerably  rapid,  though  narrow  stream.”  And  the  Archduke  Lud- 
wig Salvator  (in  his  Caravan  Route  between  Egypt  and  Syria,  p.  30)  says:  “ El- 
Harish  is  the  town  of  the  desert  which  forms  the  most  advanced  post  of  the  Khedive 
in  the  direction  of  Turkish  territory.” 

3 Wilson  ( Lands  of  Bible , II.,  52)  reports  the  Samaritan  high  priest  as  saying  to 
him  about  Solomon  : “ Why,  do  you  not  know  that  his  kingdom  extended  from  El- 
’Arish  to  Damascus;  and  from  the  Great  Sea  to  the  Euphrates?” 

4 Sir  Walter  Raleigh  says  (Hist,  of  World,  Pt.  I.,  Bk.  II.,  Chap.  10,  § 2)  that 
“ Epiphanius  reports  it  as  a tradition,  that  at  this  place  [Rhinocorura,  now  El-Arish] 
the  world  was  divided  by  lot  betweene  the  three  sonnes  of  Noah.” 

5 Fiirst,  in  his  Hlustrated  Bible,  in  a note  on  Ezekiel  47  : 19,  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Epiphanius,  the  ecclesiastical  apologist,  speaks  of  the  Wady  el-’Areesh  as 
“ Nakhal  ” simply : and  this  would  seem  a confirmation  of  the  view  of  so  many 


THE  PR  OMISED  LAND'S  SO  UTHERN  B 0 UNDAR  Y.  117 


of  the  Land  of  Promise  is  Wady  el-JAreesh,  would  indeed  seem 
to  be  put  beyond  fair  questioning. 

The  boundary-line  landmarks  named  between  Kadesh-barnea 
and  the  Torrent  of  Egypt  have  not  yet  been  so  identified  as  to  find 
general  acceptance  ; but  this  is  of  minor  importance  except  in  con- 
firmation of  the  other  identifications.  The  eastern,  central,  and 
western  points  of  the  southern  boundary  line  being  fixed,  the 
intermediary  points  can  easily  be  located.  I think  I shall  be  able 
to  make  them  clear  by  a report,  farther  on,  of  my  researches  in 
that  region ; but  that  is  not  essential  just  here.  “ Azmon  ” is 
apparently  identified  in  the  Jewish  Targums1  with  the  modern 
Qasaymeh,  a group  of  springs,  or  pools,  a little  to  the  northeast  of 
Jebel  Muwaylih,  near  the  great  caravan  route — the  Way  of  Shur — 
between  Egypt  and  Syria,  already  several  times  referred  to.  And 
enough  is  shown  in  the  identifications  which  are  conclusive,  to 
prove  that  Kadesh-barnea  is  in  the  heart  of  the  ’Azazimeh  moun- 
tain tract,  at  some  point  south  of  a line  drawn  from  the  southern 
end  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  mouth  of  Wady  el-?Areesh ; and  this 
agrees  with  all  that  has  before  appeared  concerning  its  probable 
location. 

A point  which  ought  to  receive  attention  in  the  boundary-line 
description  in  Joshua,  is  the  reference  to  Teman  as  the  portion  of 
Edom  lying  next  to  the  Wilderness  of  Zin.  As  has  already  been 
mentioned,2  the  phrase  translated  (Joshua  15  : 1),  tc  The  Wilder- 
ness of  Zin  southward  was  the  uttermost  part  of  the  south  coast,” 

scholars,  that  the  simple  word  “Nakhal,”  in  this  passage  of  Ezekiel,  means  the 
Torrent  [of  Egypt].  Professor  Palmer  (as  above)  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the 
name  “ is  still  perpetuated  in  the  fort  of  Nakhl,”  in  mid-desert;  although  that  fort 
has  been  commonly  understood  to  be  the  Fortress  of  the  Palms,  from  the  Arabic 
{Nakhl,  JL^o  “palm-trees”),  rather  than  from  the  Hebrew  {Nakhal,  bflJ 
“torrent”). 

1 Both  the  Jerusalem  and  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  Targums  render  “ Azmon,”  at 
Num.  34:  5,  as  Qesam  (DD'p). 

2 See  page  107,  supra. 


118 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


might  more  properly  be  rendered,  “ The  Wilderness  of  Zin  south- 
ward, from  the  extremity  of  Teman.”1  This  is  the  view  taken  by 
the  Arabic  translator,  by  Houbigant,  Geddes,  Masius,2  Sebastian 
Schmidt,  and  others.  Indeed  a restatement  of  the  boundary  line 
in  Ezekiel  makes  this  quite  clear,  in  the  light  of  the  Septuagint 
explanatory  addition  just  there.  As  Crosby3  says  concerning  the 
phrase  in  Joshua  : “ ‘ Teman  ’ means  ‘ south/  it  is  true,  but  as  the 
writer  has  just  used  ‘ negeb  ’ for  * south/  and  uses  it  immediately 
again  in  verse  2,  it  is  almost  certain  that  he  here  means  ‘ Teman  ’ 
" for  the  country  of  Teman.” 

“ Teman  ” 4 is  a Hebrew  term  meaning  literally  “ what  is  on  the 
right  hand,”5  or  “the  right  hand  place;”  hence  “the  southern 
quarter.”  As  a proper  name,  it  is  applied  to  a region  or  district  of 
Edom,6  and  also  to  the  progenitor  of  the  people  of  that  region.7 
As  in  the  case  of  the  word  “ Negeb,”  which  designated  the  arid 
land  southward  of  Canaan,  receiving  its  meaning  of  southward 
from  its  position  Canaanward ; so  in  the  case  of  Teman,  it  was 
probably  the  portion  of  Edom  which  lay  directly  south,  or  Teman- 
ward,  of  Canaan.8  This  being  so,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  the 

1 The  Hebrew  word  Taiman  or  Teman,  like  the  word  Negeb,  although  a 

proper  name,  is  frequently  used  in  the  Old  Testament  as  an  indication  of  a point  of 
the  compass — southward. 

2 Cited  in  Pool’s  Synops.  Grit.  3 Notes  on  Joshua , in  loco. 

* Taiman  5 See  Gesenius,  Heb.  Lex s.  v. 

6 See  Gen.  36 : 34 ; Jer.  49  : 7,  20 ; Ezek.  25  : 13 ; Amos  1 : 12 ; Obad.  9 ; Hab.  3 : 3. 

7 Gen.  36  : 11,  15 ; 1 Chron.  1 : 53. 

8 Every  passage  in  which  a reference  to  Teman  occurs,  in  the  Bible,  is  consistent 
with  this  understanding  of  its  location.  In  Ezek.  25  : 13,  it  seems  to  be  named  as  if 
it  were  the  western  side  of  Edom,  as  over  against Dedan  on  the  east:  in  Amos  1 : 12, 
it  is  put,  as  if  in  the  southwest,  over  against  Bozrah  in  the  northeast ; in  Obadiah  9, 
it  is  set  over  against  Mount  Seir  ; and  in  Habakkuk  it  is  used  as  a parallelism  with 

Mount  Paran.  Moreover,  there  even  seems  to  be  a trace  of  the  old  name  in  the  Pass 
el-Yeraen  (the  Pass  of  the  Right,  or  the  Pass  of  the  South,  or  the  Pass  which  is  over 

against  Teman),  which  goes  out  from  Wady  Feqreh  northward,  up  the  Bald  Moun- 
tain, over  against  ancient  Teman — as  we  find  Teman  referred  to  in  this  boundary  line 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY.  119 


southern  boundary  line  of  the  Land  of  Promise  ran  along  the 
border  of  Edom,  or  Teman,  until  it  reached  the  western  extremity 
of  that  border,  whence  it  ran  Zinward  toward  Kadesh-  barnea, 
“ southwards  from  the  extremity  of  Teman.” 

Once  more  is  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Promised  Land 
accurately  described,  in  Ezekiel’s  prophecy  of  its  re-establishment, 
and  that  in  such  a way  as  to  throw  added  light  on  the  place  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  between  the  eastern  and  western  limits  of  that 
boundary.  Beginning  at  the  north,  the  prophet  describes  the 
boundary  lines,  by  way  of  the  east  around  the  whole  compass.1 
Ending  the  eastern  boundary  at  the  Dead  Sea,2  he  outlines  the 
southern  boundary  with  a few  salient  landmarks,  instead  of  giving 
all  the  details  supplied  in  Numbers  and  Joshua. 

“And  the  south  side  southward  [or,  on  the  south  Temanward] ; 
from  Tamar  [or,  Thamar],  even  to  [or,  as  far  as]  the  waters  of 
strife  in  Kadesh  [or,  the  waters  of  Meribah-Kadesh],3  the  river 
[or,  torrentward]  to  the  Great  Sea  [or,  the  inheritance  (reaches)  to 
the  Great  Sea].  And  this  is  the  south  side  southward4  [or,  the 
south  side,  Temanward].”5 

of  southern  Canaan.  As  to  the  Pass  el-Yemen,  see  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  178, 
179,  182;  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  291,  416.  As  to  Teman,  see  Wilton’s  The 
Negeb,  pp.  123-126.  See  also  page  107,  supra. 

1 Ezekiel  47  : 13-21.  2 Ezekiel  47  : 18.  3 Num.  20 : 13 ; 27 : 14 ; Deut.  32  : 51. 

4 The  use  of  the  word  Temanward  has  already  been  considered  (see  page  118, 

supra ) in  connection  with  the  boundary  line  as  recorded  in  Joshua.  In  the  Septu- 
agint,  the  phrase  pros  Noton  kai  Liba  (Trpbg  N orov  nai  Ai(3a),  corresponding  here 
with  the  Hebrew  Neghebh  Taimanah  3JJ),  rendered  in  our  version  “ south 

side  southward,”  is  supplemented  by  apo  Thaiman  (a-iro  Qaipav ),  “from  [or,  along] 
Teman,”  the  Teman  (Taiman)  of  the  Hebrew  text  being  reduplicated  in  the  Greek, 
thus  indicating  the  opinion  of  the  Seventy  that  in  this  instance,  at  least,  the  proper 
name  Teman  was  intended  as  a boundary -line  landmark.  The  Genevan  Bible  reads, 
“And  the  south  side  shalbe  toward  Teman.”  Van  Dyck’s  Arabic  Bible  renders : 
“ And  this  is  the  side  of  Temin  southward. 

5 See,  also,  Ezek.  48  : 28. 

For  various  readings  here  suggested,  and  for  their  discussion,  see  Schaff-Lange 


120 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Apparently,  three  principal  points  are  here  designated  on  the 
line  of  the  southern  boundary ; one  at  the  eastern  end,  one  in  the 
centre,  one  at  the  western  end, — between  the  extreme  bounds  of  the 
Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean  • Thamar  at  the  east,  Kadesh- 
barnea  in  the  centre,  the  Torrent  of  Egypt  at  the  west.  This  is 
what  would  seem  to  accord  with  the  method  of  Ezekiel  in  his 
running  anew  of  the  entire  boundary  line  of  the  Holy  Land  from 
the  north  by  way  of  the  east,  around  again  to  his  starting 
point. 

Thamar  was  probably  a town  at  or  near  the  southern  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  which  had  come  into  existence,  or  into  prominence, 
between  the  days  of  Joshua  and  Ezekiel,  and  therefore  had  men- 
tion by  the  latter  and  not  by  the  former.  Ptolemy,1  in  an  enu- 
meration of  the  towns  of  Judea  west  of  the  Jordan,  names  as  the 
most  southerly  town  in  his  list,  u Thamaro,”  which  he  locates  by 
his  somewhat  indefinite  latitude  and  longitude2  corresponding  very 
nearly  with  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Eusebius 3 refers  to 
“a  certain  Thamara,  a village  distant  a day’s  journey  from  Mapsis,4 
as  you  go  from  Hebron  to  Ailam,  where  [at  Thamara]  is  now  a 

Com. ; Speaker’s  Com. ; Ilengstenberg’s  Com.  on  Ezek. ; Ilitzig’s  Der  Prophet 
Ezekiel;  Etc. 

1 Geog.  Bk.  V.,  chap.  16,  § 8. 

2 This  is  Ptolemy’s  note  of  it : 

“Qa/uapi j . . . . . • Cf  7 A.5 

Thamaro 66£  31 

or  66°  20'  31° 

Reland,  in  his  Palxstina  in  quoting  this  gives  the  latitude  at  30B. 

3 In  his  Onomast.  s.  v.  “ Asason  Thamar.” 

4 Jerome  here  substitutes  “Mempsis.”  Robinson  (Bib.  Res.,  II.,  201  /.),  thinks 
that  the  place  meant  was  the  “Malatha”  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  Bk.  18,  chap.  6,  §2) 
the  “ Moladah  ” of  the  Old  Testament  (Josh.  15:  26;  19:  2;  1 Chron.  4:  28:  Neh. 
11:  26.)  The  site  of  this  place  he  would  identify  in  the  modern  el-Milh  or  Tell 
Milh;  and  Wilton  (The  Negeb  pp.  109-114,)  sustains  him  in  this  identification. 
Wilson  (Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  347)  and  Tristram  (Bible  Places,  p.  19)  also  accept  it. 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY.  121 


garrison  of  [Roman]  soldiers.”1  Reland,2  in  mentioning  “ Tha- 
maro”  of  Ptolemy,  says,  “ Possibly  it  is  the  same  as  Thamara” 
[of  Eusebius]  ; and  lie  adds  that  it  is  given  as  “ Thamaro,”  at  this 
place,  in  the  Peutinger  Tables.3  Reland  makes  the  mistake — in 
which  he  has  been  followed  by  many — of  supposing  that  Eusebius 
locates  Thamara  at  a “ day’s  journey  from  Hebron  as  you  go  to 
Aila;”  whereas  the  latter  says  it  is  a day’s  journey  from  Mapsis 
[or  Malatha ; or,  Moladah]  ; ” and  Eusebius  elsewhere  shows  that 
Malatha  [Mapsis?]  is  sixteen  miles,  or  a short  day’s  journey,  from 
Hebron.4  Thamara  is  a day’s  distance  from  this  place.  Menke,5 6 
in  his  map  carefully  plotted  from  the  Onomasticon,  locates  “ Mal- 
atha ” on  the  road  from  Hebron  to  Aila,  and  “ Thamara  ” on  the 
Dead  Sea  near  its  lower  end,  about  a day’s  journey  eastward.  In 
his  maps,  from  Ptolemy  and  the  Peutinger  Tables  and  later 
sources,  he  identifies  “ Thamaro  ” with  “ Thamara ; ” and  “ Maps  ” 
and  “ Mapsis  ” with  “ Malatha.”  There  would  seem  little  reason 


1 The  text  of  the  Onomasticon  is : ’A aaabv  Qapap , evx 9a  narti/cow  oi  ’ Apoppaloi, 
ovg  Karenoipev  Xodophoyopup,  TrapaaeiTCu  ry  kprjpc j KaSfiyg.  2 kytrai  6£  rig  0 apapa  K&py 
dieoTcjoa  M.axpig  rjpipag  o56v,  amovrov  aero  Xe/3po)v  sig  AlXap,  rjng  vvv  <{>povpi6v  ectl 

TO)V  CTpaTlUTUV. 

Jerome  renders  this:  Asason  Thamar , in  hac  habitabant  quondam  Amorrhxi , quos 
interfecit  Chodorlagomor ; zuxta  eremum  Cades,  est  et  aliud  castellum  Thamara; 
unites  diei  itinere  a Mampsis  oppido  separatum , pergentibus  Ailiam  de  Chebron , ubi 
nunc  Romanum  presidium  positum  est. 

2 Palxstina,  p.  1031. 

3 The  Tabula  Peutingeriana  is  a chart  of  the  military  roads  of  the  Roman  empire, 
with  the  distances  noted  between  the  towns.  Its  date  is  of  the  third  or  fourth  centu- 
ries of  our  era. 

4 ’A papa,  7 xokig  ’A poppaiov  irapaiceiphij  rfi  kpfjpqma'kovphy  K a&drjg  icat  eotiv  elg  hi 
vvv  Kopt]  aero  TEraprov  cypeiov  MaAaadi,  ryg  6e  Xe/?p<yv  a~o  eikocu,  tyvTifjg  ’I ovda. 
( Onomast . s.  v.  “Arama.”) 

“Arama  (Arad) : A city  of  the  Amorites,  lying  near  to  the  desert  called  Kaddes, 
and  there  is  there  even  now  a village  at  the  fourth  milestone  from  Malatha,  but  the 
twentieth  from  Hebron,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.” 

6 In  his  Bihelatlas. 


122 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


for  doubting  that  the  Thamar  of  Ezekiel  is  the  Thamaro  of 
Ptolemy  and  the  Thamara  of  Eusebius,  a town  located  near  the 
southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on  its  western  shore ; 1 and  that  this 
was  the  newly  named  starting  point  of  the  southern  boundary  line 
of  the  Ploly  Land. 

Robinson 2 has  proposed  to  identify  the  ruins  of  Kurnub,  on  the 
hills  above  Es-Sufah,  with  the  Thamar  of  Ezekiel ; but  his  argu- 
ments on  that  point  have  been  more  than  met  by  later  inves- 
tigators.3 De  Saulcy 4 would  find  the  remains  of  Thamar  on  the 
shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  the  mouth  of  Wady  Mubugheek,  (which 
he  calls  Ouad  el-Maist  Embarrheg,)  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by 
Wilton;  but  Tristram,5  with  more  reason,  would  see  these  remains 
at  the  mouth  of  Wady  Zuwayrah,  nearer  the  lower  end  of  the  sea, 
where  Bertou 6 and  De  Saulcy  thought  they  found  traces  of  ancient 
Zoar.  In  the  line  of  Tristram’s  identification,  is  the  mediaeval 
mention 7 of  a place  known  as  “ Palmar,”  “ Palmer,”  or  “ Paum- 
ier  ” (nearly  the  equivalent  of  “ Thamar  ” — the  Palm)  in  this  im- 
mediate region ; and,  in  Menke’s  map  of  the  Holy  Land  in  the 
time  of  the  Crusades,  “ Palmer  ” is  laid  down  as  at  the  lower  end 
of  the  Dead  Sea. 

But,  whichever  of  these  closely  adjacent  sites  be  accepted  as  the 
place  of  ancient  Thamar,  there  can  hardly  be  a question  that  Eze- 
kiel takes  that  place  near  the  Dead  Sea,  as  the  eastern 8 starting 

1 See  Hengstenberg’s  Com.  on  Ezek. ; Schaff-Lange  Com. ; Speaker’s  Com.  in  loco ; 
also  Imp.  Bib.  Die .,  s.v.  “Kadesh.” 

2 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  197-202. 

3 See  Keil’s  Com.  on  Ezek.,  Schaff-Lange  Com.  and  Speaker’s  Com.,  all  in  loco; 
also  Van  de  Velde’s  Syrien  u.  Pal.,  II.,  146,  and  Wilton’s  The  Negeb,  pp.  94-97. 

4 Dead  Sea,  I.,  210-212.  5 Land  of  Israel,  p.  322. 

6 Referred  to  by  Robinson,  in  Bib.  Res.,  appendix  to  Vol.  II.,  first  edition,  p.  661  /. 

7 Von  Raumer’s  Pal.,  p.  189. 

8 Robinson  having  a theory  to  sustain,  as  to  the  site  of  Kadesh -barnea,  and  having 

fixed  upon  Kurnub  as  the  site  of  Thamar,  speaks  (Bib.  Res.,  II.,  202)  of  “ the  Tha- 
mar of  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  from  which  the  southern  border  of  the  land  was  to  be 


THE  PROMISED  LAND'S  SOUTHERN  BOUNDARY.  123 


point  of  the  southern  boundary  line  of  the  restored  Holy  Land ; 
Kadesh  as  the  central  and  southernmost  point  of  that  line ; and 
the  Torrent  of  Egypt,  with  its  outlet  into  the  Mediterranean,  as  its 
western  point.  This  would  seem  to  fix  Kadesh-  barnea  as  midway 
between  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  mouth  of  Wady 
el-’Areesh ; but  at  a place  in  the  9 Azazimeh  mountain  tract  farther 
south  than  a line  drawn  directly  between  the  two  termini.  This 
again  corresponds  with  all  that  we  have  before  learned  of  its 
probable  site,  and  gives  added  data  for  its  fixing. 

The  wedge  shape  of  this  southern  boundary  line,  as  here  de- 
scribed— with  Kadesh-barnea  as  its  lower  point — conforms  to  all 
the  southern  boundary  lines  of  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai.1  The 
peninsula  itself  is  wedge  shaped.  “ The  desert  of  Et  Tih  is  a 
limestone  plateau  of  irregular  surface,  the  southern  portion  of 
which  projects  wedge-wise  into  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula.”2  Again 
the  southern  line  of  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  plateau  “ projects 
[wedge-wise]  into  the  Tih,  much  in  the  same  way  as  the  Tih  pro- 
jects into  Sinai.”3  Finding  these  three  natural  boundary  lines  one 
above  another,  we  are  prepared,  in  looking  for  a fourth  line,  above 

measured,  on  one  side  to  Kadesh,  and  on  the  other  to  the  western  sea.”  But  this 
suggestion  of  a start  in  the  middle,  and  a working  in  both  directions,  Wilton  ( The 
Negeb , p.  97)  characterizes  as  a “most  unnatural  gloss.”  Hengstenberg  {Com.  on 
Ezek.,  p.  479)  says  that  it  leads  to  an  “ unnatural  assumption,  . . . against  which  all 
analogy  speaks.” 

1 “Kashi”  {’al  ha-Torah,  at  Num.  34:  3)  speaks  of  Egypt  and  Edom  as  pressing 
on  the  southern  boundary  of  Palestine  ; as  the  wedge  shape  of  that  boundary  would 
indicate. 

2 Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  284. 

Major  H.  E.  Palmer,  in  his  Sinai  (p.  4 /.),  after  defining  the  area  of  “ the  triangular 
peninsula  ” of  Sinai,  goes  on  to  say  : “ The  lofty  desert  table-land  of  the  Tih,  which 
occupies  the  whole  space  between  the  Red  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean,  projects 
boldly  southward  into  this  area  in  such  a manner  as  to  form,  roughly  speaking,  a 
second  triangle,  interior  to  the  first,  and  resting  on  the  same  base,  with  its  apex  at  or 
near  the  centre  of  the  large  one.” 

3  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  289. 


124 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


these  three,  to  recognize  it  in  a natural  outline  parallel  to  them  all, 
as  made  by  Wady  Feqreh  on  the  east  and  Wady  el-’Areesh  on  the 
west,  with  Kadesh-barnea  as  its  southernmost  angle ; and  as 
described  so  fully  in  Numbers,  Joshua,  and  Ezekiel.  A natural 
boundary  line  of  this  description  is  certainly  more  in  accordance 
with  all  the  boundary  lines  of  Bible  lands,  than  would  be  an 
abrupt  horizontal  line  striking  across  mountain  and  wady,  from 
sea  to  sea ; for  “ the  natural  boundaries  of  the  geographer  are 
rarely  described  by  right  lines.” 


15.  SEL’A— PETRA— THE  ROCK. 

There  is  one  more  Bible  reference  to  Kadesh-barnea  as  a boun- 
dary-line landmark  which  may  prove  a help  to  its  locating ; and 
that  is  in  J udges  1 : 36,  where  it  appears  under  the  name  of  The 
Rock — a name  which  recalls  one  of  its  distinctive  natural  features, 
aud  also  one  of  the  most  momentous  incidents  in  its  varied  history 
as  a locality.1  “ And  the  coast  [or,  border]  of  the  Amorites,”  says 
the  Hebrew  historian,  in  telling  of  the  struggle  for  that  enemy’s 
subjugation,  “ was  from  the  going  up  to  Akrabbim  [or,  from 
Maaleh-’Akrabbim2],  from  The  Rock,  and  upward  [or,  north- 
ward].” 

The  Hebrew  word  here  translated  Rock,  is  Sel’a;3  the  same 
word  as  that  which  appears  in  the  Bible  for  the  first  time,  and 
there  five  times  over,  in  the  narrative  of  the  murmuring  for  water, 
and  of  the  miracle  for  its  supply,  at  Kadesh-barnea.  It  is  a dif- 
ferent word  from  that  translated  “rock,”  in  Exodus  17  : 6,  in  the 
story  of  the  miraculous  supply  of  water  at  Horeb.  There  the  He- 
brew word  is  tsoor .4  Tsoor  gives  the  idea  of  strength  and  sharp- 


1 Num.  20 : 7-11.  2 See  pages  107-114,  supra. 

3 Or,  with  the  article,  l,l7Dn  ( hasseVa,  or,  as  Anglicized,  lia-SeVa). 


* TOf. 


SEVA — PE  TEA — THE  ROCK . 


125 


ness,  and  is  applied  to  rocks  in  general;  while  SeVa  suggests 
height,  and  is  applied  to  a cliff  or  crag.” 1 

At  a later  period  in  Jewish  history,  another  Sel’a2  than  the 
Rock  of  Kadesh-barnea  comes  into  prominence,  as  a stronghold  of 
the  Edomites — possibly  the  place  subsequently  known  as  Petra,  or 
the  Rock-City;  and  this  identity  of  name  has  been  a cause  of 
strange  and  manifold  confusion  in  both  ancient  and  modern  men- 
tions  of  Kadesh  and  Petra.3  Sel’a  was  first  used  in  the  sacred 
narrative  as  a designation  of  the  Rock  at  Kadesh-barnea.  The 
most  natural  use  of  the  same  term,  in  a record  of  events  happen- 
ing within  less  than  a century  after  the  Israelites’  departure  from 
the  vicinity  of  that  Rock,  is  its  application  to  the  same  landmark ; 
especially  as  Sel’a  does  not  appear  as  an  obvious  designation  of  the 
Edomite  stronghold  until  nearly  six  centuries  later.4  Moreover,  as 
Kadesh-barnea  was  already  the  well-known  boundary  landmark 
next  west,  or  southwest,  of  Maaleh-’Akrabbim,5  its  new  mention 
here — under  the  name  of  the  Rock — in  conjunction  with  Maaleh- 
’Akrabbim,  on  a southern  boundary  line,  would  seem  hardly  open  . 
to  question. 

An  added  reason  for  designating  Kadesh-barnea  as  Sel’a,  in 
referring  to  it  as  a boundary  limit  of  the  Amorite  domain,  is  pos- 
sibly to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  there  was  another  Kadesh  (pro- 
bably Kadesh-Naphtali)  already  known  as  “ Kadesh  of  the 
Amorites,” 6 to  which  there  are  repeated  references  in  the  Egyptian 

1 Gesenius’s  Heb.  and  Chald.  Lex.,  s.vv. ; also  Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Pal.,  Appendix, 

M 28,  29. 

2 2 Kings  14 : 7. 

3 This  will  be  shown  more  clearly  farther  on  in  this  work. 

4 2 Kings  14 : 7 ; and  2 Chron.  25 : 11,  12. 

5 Num.  34:  4;  Josh.  15:  3.  See,  also,  page  114,  supra. 

6 It  has  been  common  to  confound  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites  with  Kadesh  of  the 
Amorites,  but  the  distinction  between  the  two  places  will  be  considered  farther  on  in 
this  work.  This,  however,  does  not  affect  the  point  above  made,  that  there  was  a 
Kadesh  of  the  Amorites  which  was  not  Kadesh-barnea. 


126 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


records.  It  is  as  if  the  chronicler  had  said  : The  boundary  limit 
of  the  Amorites  is  Kadesh  the  Hock,  not  Kadesh  of  the  Amorites. 

If,  indeed,  the  Rock  in  this  case  were  to  be  understood  as  mean- 
ing Petra,  the  described  boundary  line  of  the  Amorites  would 
either  be  meaningless,  or  be  an  absurdity.  Petra  is  east  of  the 
’Arabah.  The  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  is  but  a short  distance  to  the 
west  of  the  ’Arabah ; 1 unless  indeed  it  be  reckoned  as  in  the  ?Ara- 
bah,  according  to  the  claim  of  Robinson  and  those  who  accept  his 
tentative  location  of  it.2  In  the  one  case,  a southern  boundary 
line  from  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  to  Petra  would  start  the  Amor- 
ites “ upward 77  into  the  Dead  Sea;  in  the  other  case  the  line 
would  run  from  north  to  south,  and  return  on  itself.3  But,  recog- 
nizing Kadesh-barnea  in  the  Rock,  the  reasonableness  of  the  Amor- 
ite  boundary  line  is  evident.  The  Amorites,  or  Highlanders,4 
occupied  the  central  hill-country  of  the  Land  of  Promise,  north 
and  south,  between  the  Shephelah,  or  maritime  plain,  on  the  west, 
and  the  ’Arabah,  or  Ghor,  or  the  Jordan  valley,  on  the  east.  The 
southern  base  line  of  this  Hill-country  of  the  Amorites  would 
stretch  from  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim — or  the  Pass  el- Yemen — on 
the  northeast,  to  Kadesh-barnea — or  the  Rock — as  already  indi- 
cated in  the  southern  boundary  of  Judah,  on  the  southwest.  Or, 
as  the  text  describes  it:  “The  border  of  the  Amorites  was  from 
Maalch-’Akrabbim,  from  the  Rock,  and  northward.” 5 

1 See  pages  109-114,  supra.  2 See  page  109,  supra. 

3 So  evident  is  this  difficulty,  that  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that  the 
Hebrew  word  ma’elah  (nSj’D),  in  Judges  1:  36,  should  be  translated  “onward,” 
instead  of  “ upward,”  and  so  the  landmarks  named  be  taken  as  starting  but  not  com- 
pleting the  boundary  line  description.  But  this  claim  has  been  shown  to  be  entirely 

untenable.  See  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  in  loco. 

4 See  page  65,  supra. 

5 For  the  discussion  of  various  points  involved  in  this  rendering,  see,  Kurtz’s  Hist, 
of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  208;  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  in  loco;  Fries’s  “Ueber  die 
Lage'von  Kades,”  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  pp.  60-62;  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  Speaker’s 
Com.,  and  Barrett’s  Synops.  of  Crit.,  all  in  loco. 


ANOTHER  LANDMARK. 


127 


16.  THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOR. 

Tlie  only  remaining  references  to  Kaclesh-barnea  in  the  Bible 
text,  which  might  be  supposed  to  throw  any  light  on  its  location, 
are  its  several  mentions  in  connection  with  other  stopping  places 
in  the  narrative  of  the  wanderings,  and  again  in  the  formal  list  of 
the  stations  of  encampment. 

In  Numbers  20:  22,  it  is  said:  “And  the  children  of  Israel, 
even  the  whole  congregation,  journeyed  from  Kadesh,  and  came 
unto  Mount  Hor.”  And  again,  in  Numbers  33:  37:  “And  they 
removed  from  Kadesh,  and  pitched  in  Mount  Hor,  in  the  edge  of 
the  land  of  Edom.”  This  at  once  raises  the  questions : Where  is 
Mount  Hor?  at  what  point  on  the  boundary  line  of  the  land  of 
Edom?  and,  Is  Kadesh  to  be  understood  as  only  a day’s  distance 
from  Mount  Hor?  For  if  Mount  Hor  be  identified,  and  Kadesh 
is  to  be  looked  for  within  a day’s  distance  of  that  mountain, 
another  important  clue  is  obtained  to  the  location  of  Kadesh. 

“Mount  Hor”  is  a descriptive  title,  indicating  a mountain 
which  is  peculiar  and  distinctive.  Its  Hebrew  form  is  Hor  ha- 
Ilar,1  literally  “Mountain,  the  Mountain.”  The  name  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a greater  height  than  other  mountains ; nor  yet 
a place  among  other  mountains ; but  it  does  indicate  a mountain 
that  for  some  reason  stands  out  as  a mountain — the  mountain. 
Thus  Mount  Tabor,  which  rises  prominently  from  a plain,  is 
called  by  the  Arabs,  Jehel  et-Toor2 — the  equivalent  of  Hor  ha- 
Har.  There  was  a northern  Mount  Hor,3  (commonly  supposed  to 
be  Mount  Hermon 4)  also  named  as  a boundary  landmark  of  the 

1 HebrewOnn  “Yin. 

T T 

2 Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  351.  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.  I.  p.  388.  3 Num.  34:  7,  8. 

4 See  Schaff-  Lange  Com.;  Speaker’s  Com.;  Yon  Gerlach’s  Com.  on  Pent. ; Pool’s 

Synops.  Grit. ; and  Barrett’s  Synops.  of  Grit. ; all  at  Num.  34 : 7-9.  Comp,  also, 
Josh.  12 : 1. 


128 


kadesh-barnea. 


Land  of  Promise ; hence  it  is  evident  that  the  name  in  itself  is 
not  a sufficient  identification  of  the  site. 

The  commonly  accepted  site  of  the  southern  Mount  Hor  is  at 
the  east  of  the  ’Arabah,  near  the  ruins  of  ancient  Petra.1  But 
there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  justify  the  claim  of  that  site  except 
tradition ; while  there  are  difficulties  in  reconciling  that  site  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Bible  text,  which  seem  insurmountable. 

Mount  Hor  clearly  could  not  have  been  within  the  limits  of 
Edom,  certainly  not  within  the  limits  of  Mount  Seir;  for  the 
Lord  said  emphatically  to  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  were 
to  pass  that  territory  of  the  children  of  Esau  : “ Meddle  not  with 
them ; for  I will  not  give  you  of  their  land,  no,  not  so  much  as  a 
foot-breadth ; because  I have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a 
possession.” 2 Now  as  Aaron  was  buried  in  Mount  Hor,3  Mount 
Hor  must  have  been  somewhere  else  than  in  Mount  Seir ; for 
Aaron’s  grave  could  not  have  been  less  than  a foot’s  breadth  of 
land.  This  is  one  point  about  which  there  seems  no  room  for 
question. 

Yet  the  traditional  Mount  Hor  is  clearly  within  the  bounds  not 
only  of  Edom  but  of  Mount  Seir.  As  the  Speaker’s  Commentary4 
says  of  it,  in  an  argument  in  its  defense,  against  the  admitted 
difficulties  of  reconciling  it  with  the  Bible  text : “ Hor  [this  Hor] 
unquestionably  lay  within  the  territory  of  Edom;”  and  it  might 
fairly  have  added,  that  this  fact  “ unquestionably  ” puts  this  Hor 
out  of  the  question  as  a claimant  to  the  site  of  the  Hor  where 
Aaron  died  and  was  buried ; for  as  Robinson5  has  tersely  declared, 

1 For  descriptions  of  this  mountain,  see  Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syria , pp.  429-432 ; 
Irby  and  Mangles’s  Travels,  pp.  432-439 ; Legh’s  “Excursion  from  Jerusalem  to 
Wady  Mtisa,”  in  Bib.  Repos.,  Oct.  1883;  Laborde’s  Voyage  de  VArabie  Petree , p. 
60/.;  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  152;  Miss  Martineau’s  Eastern  Life,  pp.  364-366; 
Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  291-299 ; Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Pal.,  pp.  84-87. 

2Deut.  2:  5.  » Com.  Num.  20:  22-29;  33:  37-39;  Deut.  10:  6. 

4 At  Num.  20:  22.  6 In  Bib.  Sac.  for  May,  1849,  p.  380. 


THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOB. 


129 


concerning  any  such  journeying  of  the  Israelites  into  the  domain  of 
Edom,  that  is  something  “ which  we  know  was  not  permitted.” 

Just  look  at  the  irreconcilableness  of  the  traditional  site  with 
the  requirements  of  the  Bible  narrative.  From  Kadesh-barnea 
the  Israelites  sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  Edom,  asking  per- 
mission to  pass  through  his  territory.1  That  permission  was  re- 
fused, and  the  king  of  Edom  even  came  out  against  Israel  “ with 
much  people  and  with  a strong  hand ; . . . wherefore  Israel 
turned  away  from  him.”  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  death  and 
burial  of  Aaron  took  place.  The  order  of  the  Bible  narrative 
gives  a choice  of  two  readings  as  to  the  order  of  events.  The  move- 
ment of  the  Israelites  toward  Mount  Hor  was  made,  either  dur- 
ing the  absence  of  the  messengers,  or  directly  after  their  return. 
In  the  one  case,  it  would  appear  that  while  the  Israelites  would 
not  attempt  a peaceful  passage  along  Edom’s  royal  highway  with- 
out the  king  of  Edom’s  explicit  consent,  they  felt  at  liberty  to 
move  into  Edom’s  territory  and  start  a cemetery  on  one  of  the 
most  commanding  summits  of  the  nation’s  stronghold,  without  so 
much  of  ceremony  as  “ by  your  leave.”  That  would  have  been  a 
very  different  course  from  the  Oriental  usages,  as  illustrated  in  the 
purchase  of  the  double-cave  from  the  sons  of  Heth  by  the  patri- 
arch Abraham,2  when  “ he  stood  up  from  before  his  dead,”  saying, 
“ I am  a stranger  and  a sojourner  with  you  : give  me  a possession 
of  a burying-place  with  you,  that  I may  bury  my  dead  out  of  my 
sight;”  adding,  concerning  the  field  which  he  desired,  “I  will 
give  the  money  for  the  field  ; take  it  of  me,  and  I will  bury  my 
dead  there.”  The  Israelites  made  a specific  promise  to  pay  Edom 
for  all  the  water  they  or  their  cattle  might  use  in  passing  through 
that  land  ;s  but,  according  to  the  popular  tradition,  they  were 
ready  to  seize  real  estate  in  Edom  with  a purpose  of  its  occupancy 
for  all  time,  without  a proffer  of  payment,  or  the  courtesy  of  a re- 

1 Num.  20 : 14-21.  8 Gen.  23  : 3-20.  3 Num.  20  : 19. 

9 


130 


KADESH-BARNEA , 


quest.  If  that  was  really  their  way  of  doing  business,  there  was 
a good  reason  for  Edom’s  coming  out  against  them  with  much 
people  and  with  a strong  hand. 

With  the  alternative  reading  of  the  Bible  narrative  (a  reading 
which  corresponds  better  with  the  surface  order  of  record,  but 
which  has  less  probability  than  the  other,  in  view  of  the  Bible 
method  of  following  out  one  incident  to  its  completion,  and  then 
going  back  to  take  up  and  follow  out  another), — if  it  was  not  until 
the  messengers  came  back  to  Kadesh  from  the  king  of  Edom, 
bringing  his  refusal,  that  the  Israelites  moved  forward  to  Mount 
Hor,  the  unreasonableness  of  the  traditional  site  is  even  greater 
than  in  the  other  case.  According  to  this  view,  when  the  Israelites 
had  been  told  that  they  could  not  pass  through  Edom,  and  while 
an  Edomitish  army  was  actually  coming  down  against  them,  they 
deliberately  moved  out  in  full  force  from  their  encircled-strong- 
hold,  and,  in  defiance  of  the  Edomitish  demonstration,  pressed  for- 
ward to  the  very  citadel,  as  it  were,  of  the  land  which  had  been 
forbidden  them,  and,  encamping  before  it,  remained  there  threaten- 
ingly, while  Aaron,  with  Moses  and  Eleazer,  went  within  the 
limits  of  the  forbidden  domain  to  take  more  than  a foot  of  the 
soil  which  the  Lord  said  they  were  not  to  possess.  The  mere 
statement  of  this  case  is  its  completest  refutation. 

The  truth  is,  that  revelation  and  reason  are  at  one  against  the 
identification  of  the  veritable  Mount  Hor  in  the  traditional  Mount 
Hor.  All  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  site1  is,  that  some  fif- 
teen centuries  after  the  death  of  Aaron,  Josephus,2  and  then  Euse- 
bius,3 and  Jerome,4  understood  that  the  traditional  tomb  of  Aaron 
was  not  far  from  the  ancient  Petra.  Not  a particle  of  evidence  in 

1 For  the  arguments  in  its  favor  see  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  291-299 ; Speaker's 
Com.,  at  Num.  20  : 22 ; Drew’s  Scripture  Lands,  p.  84,  note. 

2 Antiq.,  Bk.  IV.,  Chap.  4,  § 7.  3 Onomast.,  s.  v.,  “ Or  ” (TS2p). 

4 Be  Loc.  Heb .,  s.  v.,  ‘‘  Or.” 


THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOB. 


131 


favor  of  this  identification  is  suggested  by  either  of  these  writers ; 
and  the  cause  of  their  error  in  the  location  is  sufficiently  accounted 
for  by  the  confusion,  which  existed  even  in  their  day  and  earlier, 
as  also  long  afterwards,  between  the  Rock-Kadesh  and  the  Rock- 
Petra.  Mount  Hor  may  indeed  have  been  near  the  Rock-Kadesh ; 
it  could  not  have  been  at  the  Rock-Petra,  nor  have  held  the  relation 
to  that  Rock-City  held  by  the  mountain  which  is  known  to  the 
Arabs  as  Jebel  Neby  Ilaroon,  the  Mountain  of  the  Prophet  Aaron. 
An  Arab  tradition  of  a tomb  is  the  poorest  possible  basis  for  a 
geographical  identification.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  could  be  so  in 
error  as  to  insist  that  the  mountains  Ebal  and  Gerizim  were  near 
Jericho,1  and  even  when  Josephus  agrees  with  them  as  to  an 
ancient  tradition,  there  is  small  weight  to  be  attached  to  the  com- 
bination, in  the  face  of  the  manifold  requirements  of  the  Bible 
narrative  to  the  contrary,  especially  when  the  cause  of  the  tradi- 
tional mistake  is  already  ascertained. 

The  plain  geographical  indications  of  the  Bible  text  are  hardly 
less  strong  against  the  identification  of  Mount  Hor  in  its  tradi- 
tional site  at  Jebel  Keby  Haroon,  than  are  the  rational  indications. 
As  has  already  been  shown,  there  is  commonly  a distinction  be- 
tween “ Mount  Seir  ” and  “ the  land  of  Edom,”  in  the  various 
Pentateuch  references  to  the  Edomitish  territory  east  and  west  of 
the  ’Arabah.  While  there  are  occasional  uses  of  the  term,  “ the 
land  of  Edom,”  as  covering  the  possessions  of  Edom  on  both  sides 
of  the  ?Arabah,2  the  ordinary  distinction  is  kept,  of  Mount  Seir  as 
the  region  directly  east  of  the  ’Arabah,3  and  the  land  of  Edom,  or 
the  region  of  Teman,  west  of  the  ’Arabah.4  And  Mount  Hor  is 

1 Onomast.,  s.  v.,  “ Golgol.” 

2 So,  e,  g.,  at  Gen.  36  : 21 ; 1 Kings  9 : 26.  So,  similarly,  the  term  “ Israel  ” is  ap- 
plied at  times  to  “ Judah,”  even  after  the  distinction  was  made  between  the  king- 
doms of  “ Israel  ” and  “Judah.”  (See  2 Chron.  12 : 1 ; 15 : 17 ; 19  : 8 ; 21 : 2 ; Isa. 
8:  14;  etc.) 

3 So,  e.  g.}  at  Gen.  14 : 6 ; 36 : 8,  21 ; Deut.  1 : 2;  2 : 1,  5 ; Josh.  24:  4;  etc. 

4 So.  at  Gen.  32 : 3 ; Num.  21 : 4 ; 34 : 3 ; Josh.  15  : 1,  21 ; Judges  11 : 18. 


132 


KADESH-BA  RNEA . 


said  to  be  “ by  the  coast  [or,  on  the  line]  of  the  land  of  Edom  ” ; 1 
and  again,  “ in  the  edge  [or,  at  the  extremity]  of  the  land  of 
Edom  ” ; 2 not,  on  the  line,  or  in  the  extremity,  of  Mount  Seir. 
Yet  when  the  region  of  which  Jebel  Neby  Haroon  is  a part  had  to 
be  compassed,  it  is  mentioned  as  Mount  Seir,3  as  we  should  have 
reason  to  expect. 

Moreover,  the  Bible  record  shows  that  when  the  Israelites 
moved  from  Kadesh-barnea  to  Mount  Hor  they  alarmed  the  king 
of  Arad,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  as  if  they  were  advancing  threat- 
eningly  northward ; and  in  consequence  he  came  out  against  them 
in  force.4  It  has  been  a puzzle  of  puzzles  to  the  commentators  to 
explain  why  that  king  should  have  supposed  that  the  Israelites 
were  coming  toward  him  when  they  were  really  going  from  him, 
as  they  must  have  been  doing  if  Jebel  Neby  Haroon  was  their 
destination.  And  this  is  only  one  trouble  among  many,  growing 
out  of  the  attempt  to  reconcile  the  geographical  indications  of  the 
text  with  the  claims  of  the  traditional  site  of  Mount  Hor.  And 
in  addition  to  all  the  other  reasons  for  rejecting  these  claims,  it 
should  be  considered  that  since  the  stretch  of  Edom  was  on  both 
sides  of  the  ? Arabah , the  ’Arabah  itself,  northward  of  the  lower 
extremity  of  Mount  Seir,  was  within  the  territory  of  Edom  : 
hence  it  could  not  have  been  entered  by  the  Israelites. 

Yet,  all  this  while,  there  is  a mountain  which  fully  meets  the 
requirements  of  the  Bible  text,  and  the  rational  demands  of  the 
narrative,  as  to  the  Mount  Hor  where  Aaron  died  and  was  buried. 
That  mountain  is  Jebel  Madurah,5  near  the  western  extremity  of 
Wady  Feqreh,  a little  to  the  southwest  of  the  passes  Es-Sufah  and 
El-Yemen.  Its  formation,  its  location,  its  name,  go  to  identify  it 

1 Num.  20 : 23.  2 Num.  33 : 37.  3 Deut.  2 : 1-5. 

4 Num.  21 : 1 ; 33 : 40. 

5 This  identification  was  suggested  by  Wilton  (The  Negeb , p.  127  ffi),  but  its  proofs 

can  be  carried  quite  beyond  his  attempt.  See  also  Rowlands  in  Imp.  Bib.  Die.  s.  v. 

“ Moserah.” 


THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOB. 


133 


with  the  place  of  Aaron’s  burial,  and  there  is  even  a smack  of 
tradition  in  its  favor,  for  the  encouragement  of  those  who  value 
tradition  more  than  revelation  and  reason. 

Jebel  Madurah  is  peculiarly  the  “ Mountain,  the  Mountain;”  a 
mountain  rising  by  itself  alone  from  a plain,  like  Mount  Tabor  or 
Jebel  et-Toor.  “This  Madurah,”  says  Crosby,1  “is  detached  from 
all  other  mountains,  and  rises  from  the  plain  as  we  may  imagine 
the  tower  of  Babel  on  the  plain  of  Shinar.”  Seetzen2  describes 
it  as  a “steep-sided”  hill,  “quite  naked,”  and  “surrounded  with  a 
most  unfruitful  plain.”  Schubert 3 mentions  it  as  “ a high,  bald 
mountain.”  Lord  Lindsay4  calls  it  “a  large,  singular-looking, 
isolated  chalk  hill.”  Robinson 5 refers  to  it  as  “ remarkable  in  its 
appearance,  . . . rising  alone  like  a lofty  citadel.”  Wilson  desig- 
nates it  as  “ an  isolated  hill ; ” 6 and  Palmer 7 as  “ a round  isolated 
hill.”  Nothing  certainly  is  lacking  in  these  descriptions  to  show  it 
as  Hor  ha-Har , a mountain  that  is  a mountain,  instead  of  being  a 
mountain  among:  mountains. 

In  its  location,  Jebel  Madurah  stands  at  a triangular  site,  where 
the  boundaries  of  Edom,  of  Canaan,  and  of  the  Wilderness  of 
Zin,  or  in  a larger  sense  of  the  Wilderness  of  Paran,  approach 
each  other  so  as  to  pass  along  this  mountain  without  touching  it. 
It  is  at  the  extremest  northwestern  boundary  of  the  land  of  Edom, 
yet  it  is  not  within  that  boundary  line.  It  is  on  the  very  verge  of 
the  Land  of  Promise,  yet  it  is  not  within  the  outer  limits  of  that 
land.  The  border  wadies — Feqreh,  Madurah,  Murrah,  and  Han- 
joorat — which  separated  Canaan  from  Edom,  and  both  Canaan 
and  Edom  from  the  unclaimed  wilderness,  so  run  as  to  form  the 
surrounding  plain,  above  which  is  upreared  this  remarkable  moun- 
tain-tower, this  lofty,  solitary  mountain-citadel. 

1 “ El-Mukattem  ” (Dr.  Howard  Crosby)  in  Lands  of  Moslem , p.  235. 

2 Beisen,  III.,  p.  14.  3 Reise,  II.,  443.  4 Letters , II.,  46. 

5 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  179.  6 Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  340.  7 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  416. 


134 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


And  Jebel  Madurah  lies  in  a northeasterly  direction  from  the 
region  of  Kadesh-barnea,  as  all  indications  thus  far  have  combined 
to  locate  that  region.  It  is  in  the  line  from  Kadesh-barnea  of 
the  route  which  the  Israelites  seem  to  have  had  in  mind,  when 
they  proposed  to  pass  along  Edom’s  royal  road  from  the  east  of  the 
’Arabah,  and  eastward  of  the  Dead  Sea ; possibly  through  the  broad 
Wady  el-Ghuwayr1  which  offers  an  easy  passage.2  The  Israelites 
would  not  unnaturally  move  thitherward  as  they  planned  for 
that  route 3 ; and  such  a move  on  their  part  would  not  unnaturally 
be  looked  upon  by  the  kings  of  Edom  and  Arad  as  a threatening 
move,  to  be  met  and  resisted  vigorously.  Then  it  was,  on  the 
occasion  of  that  refusal,  and  the  hostile  demonstration  that  accom- 
panied it,  that  Israel  “ turned  away  ” from  Edom,4  turned  sharply 
from  the  northeast  to  the  southwest,  and  “ journeyed  from  Mount 
Hor  by  the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea;5  went  out  into  the  “ great  and 
terrible  wilderness  ” once  more,6  to  strike  the  Red  Sea  Road,  or  the 
Hajj  Route  as  it  is  called  to-day ; and  this  in  order  “ to  compass 
the  land  of  Edom,” 7 the  western  possessions  of  Edom,  included 
in  the  ’Azazimeh  and  Jebel  Muqrah  tract.  Nor  is  there  cause  for 
wonder  that  in  such  a move  as  this,  “ the  soul  of  the  people  was 
much  discouraged  because  of  the  road ; ” as  would  not  have  been 

1 See  Burckhardt’s  Travels  in  Syria , p.  421 ; Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  154/.;  etc. 

2 “ El-Ghuwayr”  is  the  diminutive  of  El-Ghor.”  This  wady  is,  therefore,  “The 
Little  ’Arabah. 

3 Palmer  ( Des . of  Exod.,  II.,  416)  in  describing  the  wady  course  in  which  Jebel 

Madurah  stands,  says:  “The  whole  of  the  wady  between  the  Nagb  Gharib  and  Jebel 
Maderah,  being  the  route  by  which  the  hostile  tribes  from  the  east  invade  the  ’Aza- 
zimeh  [mountain  tract,  in  which  Kadesh-barnea  is  supposed  to  be  located],  is  marked 
by  stone  heaps,  each  of  which  commemorates  some  incident  of  Arab  warfare.”  And 
if  that  is  the  natural  route  of  invasion  from  the  East,  why  should  it  not  be  recog- 
nized as  the  natural  route  of  exit  toward  the  East — the  natural  route  of  the  Israelites 
out  of  Kadesh-barnea  toward  the  plains  of  Moab  ? 


* Num.  20 : 21. 

6 Deut.  1 : 19. 


5 Num.  21 : 4. 
7 Num.  21 : 4. 


THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOB. 


135 


the  case  had  they  merely  moved  down  the  ’Arabah  from  near 
Petra  to  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah. 

In  the  very  name  of  Madurah  there  is  a_  seeming  trace  of  the 
name  of  the  place  of  Aaron’s  death  and  burial,  while  it  is  not 
claimed  that  there  is  any  such  trace  at  the  traditional  site  near 
Petra.  As  has  already  been  shown,  the  designation  Hot  ha-Har 
is  a descriptive  title  rather  than  a proper  name.  The  name  of  the 
mountain,  and  of  the  plain  about  the  mountain  (for  in  the  East  it 
is  a common  thing  to  find  a wady,  and  a jebel  rising  from  or  ad- 
joining that  wady,  bearing  the  same  name),  seems  to  have  been 
“ Mosera,”  or  “ Moserotli  ” ; for  in  one  place  it  is  said  that  Aaron 
died  at  Mount  Hor,1  and  in  another  place  it  is  said  that  he  died  at 
Mosera,2  and  yet  again  this  place  appears  to  be  named  in  the  list 
of  stations  (on  the  occasion  of  another  visit)  as  Moseroth.3  Now 
Madurah  is  well  nigh  an  equivalent  of  Mosera,  the  consonants 
“d”  and  “s”  having  a constant  tendency  to  interchange  in 
Eastern  speech.4  If  the  Israelites  were  assembled  in  the  Wady 
Madurah,  or  Moserah,  when  Moses  and  Aaron  and  Eleazer  went 
up  into  Jebel  Madurah,  or  Hor  ha-Har , the  solemn  scene  of  dis- 
robing the  high  priest  on  the  mountain  top  would  be  literally  “ in 
the  sight  of  all  the  congregation  ; ” 5 and  the  event  might  properly 
be  said,  at  one  time,  to  have  taken  place  at  Mount  Hor,  and  at 
another  time  to  have  occurred  at  Moserah. 

And  now  for  the  touch  of  tradition.  Although  small  weight  is 
to  be  attached  to  Arab  traditions  as  an  independent  source  of  know- 
ledge, this  testimony  has  its  incidental  value  when  it  is  corrobo- 
ratory of  evidence  that  should  have  weight.  In  the  case  of  Jebel 
Madurah,  it  is  the  uniform  report  of  the  more  intelligent 

1 Num.  20 : 22-28;  Deut.  32  : 50.  2 Deut.  10  : 6. 

3 Num.  33:  30,  31.  Comp.  Deut.  10:  6. 

4 See  Wilton’s  The  Negeb , p.  127  /,  with  quotation  from  D’Anville. 

3 Num.  20  : 26,  27. 


136 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


travelers  that  this  mountain  is  held  in  peculiar  awe  by  the  Arabs 
generally,  as  the  reputed  scene  of  an  ancient  manifestation  of  God’s 
special  judgment.  The  conflicting  details  of  the  reported  tradi- 
tions are  not  to  be  wondered  at  by  those  who  know  how  confusedly 
the  Arabs  intermingle  traditions  of  Abraham,  Moses,  Aaron, 
Muhammad,  and  Saleh.  Sodom  from  the  north,  and  Kadesh 
from  the  south,  have  been  brought  to  the  central  site  of  Madurah, 
to  furnish  material  for  the  traditions  which  linger  about  this  moun- 
tain of  judgment.  But  the  fact  that  an  exceptional  prominence 
attaches  to  this  mountain  in  the  traditions  of  the  Arabs  has  long 
been  a point  established  by  the  clearest  evidence. 

It  was  Seetzen1  who  first,  in  1807,  heard,  at  Hebron,  of  the 
remarkable  traditions  of  Jebel  Madurah,  so  that  he  was  induced 
to  make  a journey  to  that  mountain  for  the  sake  of  investigating 
them.  He  was  told  that  “ the  figure  of  & petrified  man  ” 2 was  to 
be  seen  there ; as  if  the  remains  of  Aaron  were  still  preserved  at 
the  place  where  he  died  in  the  sight  of  all  the  congregation  of 
Israel.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  he  did  not  find  the  promised 
remains.  Thirty  years  after  this,  V on  Schubert 3 was  there.  He  does 
not  clearly  indicate  what  he  heard  from  the  Arabs,  as  distinct  from 
what  he  fancied ; but  he  reports  that  region  as  the  Kadesh  where 
the  Israelites  were  judged  after  their  murmurings  at  the  report  of 
the  spies.  Then  came  Lord  Lindsay,4  who  was  told  by  the  Arabs 
that  God  crushed  a village  for  its  vices  under  that  mountain.  This 
was  the  Sodom  story  adapted  to  the  region ; the  petrified  man 
having  perhaps  suggested  the  feminine  pillar  of  salt.  Count 
Bertou,5  again,  found  traditional  traces  of  Kadesh  there  ; being 
even  told  by  his  Arabs  that  its  name  was  “ Kadessa.”  The  story 

1 Reisen,  III.,  pp.  7-14.  2 “ die  Figur  von  einem  versteinerten  Menschen 

3 Reise,  II.,  443/.  4 Letters,  II.,  46. 

e Bulletin  Soc.  Geog.,  1839,  p.  321  ff.,  cited  by  Robinson  {Bib.  Res.,  II.,  179),  and 

Wilson  {Lands  of  Bible , I.,  340). 


THE  LOCATION  OF  MOUNT  HOB. 


137 


of  the  punishment  of  Korah  and  his  company,  at  Kadesh,  may 
linger  in  the  Arab  legends  of  that  region.  B-obinson  was  given 
the  tradition  by  Shaykh  Hussan,  much  in  the  form  that  Lord 
Lindsay  heard  it.  Wilson1,  again,  refers  to  this  tradition ; and 
finally  Palmer2  repeats  it,  and  while  noting  the  fact  that  “the 
legend  is  evidently  a transplanted  reminiscence  of  the  story  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,”  suggests  a reason  for  this  transfer  in  a 
similar  name  of  the  region  near  Sodom  (Moasada),  as  given  by 
Strabo.3  Yet  while  this  similarity  of  names  may  be  one  reason  (if 
any  reason  is  needed  for  confusion  in  an  Arab  tradition)  for  the 
details  of  the  legend,  it  is  evident  that  Jebel  Madurah  itself  is  a 
site  where  traditions  of  God’s  judgment  have  been  clustered  in 
various  forms ; and,  surely,  the  sending  up  of  the  high  priest  of 
Israel  to  die  in  very  sight  of  the  Promised  Land  he  was  forbidden 
to  enter,  was  an  evident  judgment  which  could  hardly  fail  to  make 
an  impression  that  should  be  transmitted  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration among  the  people  of  the  East. 

In  fact  it  would  appear  that  there  was  actually  nothing  lacking 
to  identify  Jebel  Madurah  as  the  southern  Mount  Hor  of  the 
Bible  narrative,  unless,  indeed,  it  were  a Nabathean  tomb  where 
pilgrims  could  offer  sacrifices,  and  for  the  exhibition  of  which  the 
Bed'ween  could  secure  bakhsheesh.  In  every  other  particular, 
Jebel  Madurah  has  an  eminent  advantage  over  Jebel  Neby 
Haroon. 

Dean  Stanley,  with  his  wonted  and  charming  enthusiasm  over  a 
poetic  identification  of  a sacred  site,  says4  of  Jebel  Neby  Haroon 
as  the  probable  Mount  Hor : “ It  is  one  of  the  very  few  spots  con- 
nected with  the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites,  which  admit  of  no 
reasonable  doubt.”  Yet  it  is  by  no  means  a fact  that  this  site  has 
been  undisputed  by  intelligent  travelers  and  critical  scholars  who 


1 Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  340. 

3 Geog.,  XVI.,  2,  44. 


2 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  416. 
4 Sinai  and  Pal.,  p.  86. 


138 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


have  recognized  its  incompatibleness  with  the  Bible  narrative. 
Niebuhr,  was  disposed  to  find  Mount  Hor  in  the  peninsula  of 
Sinai,  a long  way  from  the  ’Arabah.1  In  Pocoke’s  opinion, 

“ It  is  probable  that  Jebel  Te  [Jebel  et-Teeh]  is  Mount  Hor.” 2 
An  English  scholar  of  nearly  a quarter  of  a century  ago 
was  very  positive  in  his  identification  of  Mount  Hor  in  Jebel 
’ Aracef-en-N aqah,  at  the  southwestern  angle  of  the  ’Azazimeh 
mountain  tract.3  And  that  mountain  is  certainly  a very  notable 
feature  of  the  upper  wilderness.  Robinson4  says  of  it:  “At  a 
distance  it  seems  wholly  isolated ; . . . a striking  object  ...  in 
the  middle  of  the  mighty  waste.”  But  this  mountain  is  clearly  not 
on  the  border  of  Edom,  nor  does  its  position  correspond  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Bible  text  in  other  particulars.  Wilton5 
has,  with  a good  show  of  probability,  claimed  its  identification  with 
Hor-hagidad,  “ the  very  conspicuous  mountain,”  which  appears  in 
the  list  of  stations6  at  two  removes  from  Moseroth,  or  Mount  Hor. 
Knobel,7  again,  was  positive  that  “ Hor  cannot  be  the  Jebel  Haroon 
of  Wady  Moosa.”  Ewald  declared  that  this  claimed  identification 
“ though  sedulously  propagated  and  widely  spread  in  later  times,” 
is  yet  “ a mere  conjecture,  and  perfectly  untenable.”8  Lange9 
also  saw  that  “ the  text  is  plainly  opposed  to  this  ” locating  of 
Mount  Hor ; and  that  Moserah  is  to  be  looked  for  “ scarcely  in 
the  Edomitic  ’Arabah,  but  upon  its  western  side  and  in  the 
desert.”  Wilton,10  moreover,  not  only  denied  the  possible  identifi- 
cation of  Mount  Hor  in  Jebel  Neby  Haroon,  but,  as  has  been 
stated,  he  even  pointed  out  Jebel  Madurah  as  the  true  Mount 

i Reiseb.  nach  Arab.,  p.  238.  2 Descrip,  of  East,  I.,  157. 

s « h.  C.,”  in  “ A Critical  Enquiry  into  the  Route  of  the  Exodus,”  in  Jour.  Sac. 

Lit.,  April,  1860,  p.  57  /. 

4 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  185.  5 The  Negeb,  p.  132. 

6 Num.  33 : 31,  32.  7 Exeget.  Handb.,  at  Num.  20 : 20-22. 

9 Hist,  of  Isr.,  II.,  201,  note.  9 Schaff-Lange  Com.,  at  Num.  20  : 22-29  B. 

io  The  Negeb,  pp.  126-130. 


THE  TIME  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 


139 


Hor ; and  we  have  seen  that  he  had  reason  for  his  conviction  on 
this  point. 

So  it  seems  that  not  all  scholars  have  hitherto  blindly  followed 
tradition  in  the  recognition  of  the  site  of  Mount  Hor  at  a point 
where  the  Bible  text  shows  it  could  not  have  been.  Yet  if  they 
had  done  so,  that  would  be  no  reason  for  a denial  of  the  truth 
when  an  examination  of  the  Bible  text  makes  that  truth  clear. 
“ God  forbid  : yea,  let  God  be  found  true,  but  every  man  a liar.” 1 


17.  THE  TIME  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 

Quite  distinct  from  the  question  of  the  site  of  Mount  Hor,  is 
the  question  of  the  relative  nearness  to  each  other  of  the  various 
stations  named  in  the  narrative  of  the  movements  of  the  Israelites, 
from  Egypt  to  the  plains  of  Moab.  It  has  been  common,  very 
common,  to  count  those  stations  as  generally  a day’s  distance 
apart;  hence  to  suppose  that  the  juxtaposition  of  Kadesh  and 
Mount  Hor  in  the  list  of  stations,  indicates  that  Kadesh  and 
Mount  Hor  were  but  a day’s  journey  from  each  other.  But,  in 
fact,  this  supposition  has  neither  foundation  nor  countenance  in 
the  Bible  text,  however  much  support  it  gains  in  the  commen- 
taries. Revelation  and  reason  are  at  one  against  it. 

So  far  from  it  being  true,  that  the  stations  always  indicate  day’s 
marches,  it  may  fairly  be  questioned  whether  any  two  on  the  list, 
after  leaving  Sinai,  are  only  a day  apart;  while  in  some  cases  it  is 
evident  that  the  distance  between  them  is  greater  than  this. 

On  the  way  from  Bameses  to  Sinai,  there  was,  seemingly,  no 
formal  organization  of  the  Israelitish  host;  certainly  there  was  no 
tabernacle  to  be  set  up  at  each  station.  There  was  no  such  delay 
necessary  for  the  breaking  and  pitching  of  a well  ordered  camp, 
and  for  the  due  formation  of  column  and  line  at  every  new  move, 


1 Rom.  3 : 4. 


140 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


as  was  afterward  inevitable.  Yet  even  then,  between  quite  a num- 
ber of  the  consecutive  stations,  there  must  have  been  more  than  a 
day’s  distance  intervening.1  It  is  distinctly  shown  that  between 
the  Red  Sea  crossing  place  and  Marah  was  a “ three  days’  jour- 
ney;”2 and  it  is  only  in  a few  instances  that  a fair  inference  would 
limit  the  time  between  stations  to  a single  day.  The  narrative  in 
Exodus  (16:  1)  would  appear  to  indicate  no  stop  between  Elim 
and  the  Wilderness  of  Sin;  and  again,  (17 : 1)  none  between  the 
Wilderness  of  Sin  and  Rephidim;  but  the  list  of  stations  in  Num- 
bers (33:  10-14)  names  the  Red  Sea  between  the  first  two  of 
these,  and  Dophkah  and  Alush  between  the  last  two.  And  even 
with  this  expansion  of  the  list,  the  time  between  stations  is  only 
inferential.3 

But,  however  it  may  have  been  between  Rameses  and  Sinai, 
from  Sinai  onward  a very  different  order  of  things  prevailed.  The 
host  was  organized.4  The  elaborate  details  of  a formal  camp,  tribe 
by  tribe  in  due  position  with  the  tabernacle  in  the  centre,  were 
prescribed.  Time  was  necessary  for  the  divinely  enjoined  forms, 
in  the  removing  and  loading,  and  in  the  unloading  and  replacing 
of  the  vessels  and  furniture  and  curtains  and  hangings  and  cover- 
ings and  boards  and  pillars  and  sockets  of  the  tabernacle;  for  the 
breaking  and  pitching  of  a camp  for  a mighty  host;  for  the  bring- 

1 On  this  point,  see  “ Route  of  the  Exodus,”  infra. 

2 Exod.  15 : 22,  23. 

3 It  has  been  claimed  by  some  ( e . g.  Lepsius,  in  Discoveries  in  Egypt , p.  364,  and 
Appendix,  p.  435  /. ; Von  Gerlach,  in  Com.  on  Pent.,  at  Exod.  19:  1,  and  Holland, 
in  Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  Appendix,  p.  535),  that  Exodus,  19  : 1,2,  would  indicate 
that  Rephidim  was  only  a day’s  distance  from  the  wilderness  of  Sinai ; but  an  exam- 
ination of  the  text  will  show,  that  the  phrase  “ the  same  day,”  as  there  applied  to  the 
time  of  the  arrival  at  Sinai,  has  no  immediate  reference  to  the  days  of  departure  from 
Rephidim.  “According  to  Jewish  tradition,  this  means  on  the  first  day  of  the  third 
month;  but  grammatically  it  may  be  taken  more  indefinitely — ‘at  this  time.’” 
(Schaff-Lange  Com.,  in  loco.) 

* Exod.  40 : 34-38 ; Num.  1 : 1-54 ; 2 : 1-34. 


THE  TIME  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 


141 


mg  of  all  the  able  bodied  men  into  tribal  column  of  march,  and 
into  camp  again;  to  say  nothing  of  the  delays  occasioned  by  the 
women  and  children  and  other  hindrances  to  a rapid  movement. 

“And  when  the  tabernacle  setteth  forward,  the  Levites  shall 
take  it  down;  and  when  the  tabernacle  is  to  be  pitched,  the 
Levites  shall  set  it  up.  . . . And  the  children  of  Israel  shall  pitch 
their  tents,  every  man  by  his  own  camp,  and  every  man  by  his 
own  standard,  throughout  their  hosts.” 1 These  were  the  divine 
orders  before  leaving  Sinai.  “And  the  children  of  Israel  did 
according  to  all  that  the  Lord  commanded  Moses:  so  they  pitched 
by  their  standards,  and  so  they  set  forward,  every  one  after  their 
families,  according  to  the  house  of  their  fathers.” 2 To  one  who  is 
at  all  familiar  with  extensive  army  movements,  and  with  desert 
life  and  ways  in  the  East,  the  idea  of  taking  down  that  tabernacle, 
and  breaking  up  that  camp,  and  getting  such  a mighty  host  as  that 
into  marching  order,  and  making  a reasonable  journey,  and  getting 
that  host  into  formal  camp  again,  and  setting  up  that  tabernacle  as 
before,  all  in  one  day,  is  hardly  less  than  a bald  absurdity.  If  it 
was  done,  day  by  day,  in  the  journey ings,  it  was  certainly  quite  as 
marked  a miracle  as  the  regular  supply  of  manna;  although  it  is 
not  commonly  included  in  the  list  of  miracles. 

But  the  Bible  story  makes  it  plain  that  all  this  was  not  done. 
The  first  move  from  Sinai  is  reported  in  Numbers  10:  33-36. 
“And  they  departed  from  the  mount  of  the  Lord  three  days’  jour- 
ney: and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  went  before  them  in 
the  three  days’  journey,  to  search  out  a resting  place  for  them.” 
There  is  not  much  room  for  doubt,  that  it  was  a “three  days’  jour- 
ney” from  Mount  Sinai  to  their  first  resting  place;  not  that  they 
marched  day  and  night  without  stopping  to  rest;  but  that  the  first 
two  nights  they  bivouacked,  and  on  the  third  day  they  formally 
encamped.  This  is  what  we  should  gather  from  the  text  itself; 


Nura.  1 : 51,  52. 


2 Num.  2:  34. 


142 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


and  all  outside  examination  as  to  the  probabilities  tends  to  confirm 
this  view  of  the  facts. 

The  first  station  after  Sinai  in  the  list  of  stations  is  Kibroth- 
hattaavah.  It  is  evident  from  the  narrative  that  the  tabernacle 
was  set  up  at  Kibroth-hattaavah,1  and  that  the  people  remained 
there  a month  or  more.2  There  were  dug  “ the  graves  of  lust  ” — 
for  those  who  died  as  a penalty  of  their  gluttonous  and  faithless 
lusting  ; and  Taberah 3 (the  Place  of  Burning)  was  the  name  given 
to  the  rear  of  that  vast  camping  field.4  Palmer5  thinks  that  he 
has  discovered  the  site  of  that  encampment,  at  a place  called  by 
the  Arabs  “ Erweis  el-Ebeirig,”  some  thirty  miles,  more  or  less, 
northeasterly  of  the  Plain  er-Rahah — the  supposed  Sinai  starting- 
point  of  the  Israelites.  This  identification  has  been  accepted  by 
some  others  f yet  it  cannot  be  called  a settled  point.  “ Erweis  el- 
Ebeirig  ” is  a little  eastward  of  the  route  which  Holland  thinks 
’must  have  been  taken  by  the  Israelites  from  Sinai ; 7 although  it  is 
not  so  far  from  it  that  it  cannot  be  admitted  as  a possible  diverg- 
ence, for  particular  reasons.  If,  indeed,  this  be  accepted  as  the 
site  of  Kibroth-hattaavah,  it  is  quite  too  far  from  the  Sinai  start- 
ing-point to  be  within  the  range  of  a day’s  journey,  and  not  too 
near  to  be  recognized  as  a probable  three  days’  journey.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  another  site  for  Kibroth-hattaavah  must  be  looked  for, 
that  also  will  have  to  be  recognized  as  a three  days’  journey  from 
Sinai ; for  so,  as  has  been  shown,  the  Bible  narrative  clearly  indicates.8 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a “ three  days’  journey  ” from 

1 Num.  33  : 16.  2 Num.  11 : 18-23. 

3 Num.  11:  1-3;  Deut.  9:  22.  Taberah  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  stations; 

nor  is  there  any  mention  of  a move  from  it  to  Kibroth-hattaavah. 

4 On  this  point,  see  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com..  III.,  64/. ; Schaff  Lange  Com:  : 
and  Speaker's  Com.,  at  Num.  11 : 1-3. 

5 Des.  of  Exod.,  I.,  257-260.  6 So,  e.  g.,  Bartlett,  in  Egypt  to  Pal.,  pp.  285-299. 

7 See  page  77  ff.,  supra  ; also  Report  of  British  Assoc,  for  1878,  p.  622  ff. 

8 Num.  10  : 33. 


THE  TIME  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 


143 


the  original  starting  point  of  a caravan,  in  the  East,  is  by  no 
means  so  great  a distance  as  a three  days’  journey  at  a later  period  in 
the  course  of  a prolonged  pilgrimage;  for,  as  a rule,  the  first  day’s 
journey  is  hardly  more  than  a preliminary  movement  for  a start. 
Anyone  familiar  with  Eastern  travel  will  bear  witness  to  this  fact. 
For  example,  when  I was  to  start  from  Suez  for  Mount  Sinai, 
although  everything  was  in  readiness  on  the  evening  of  my  reach- 
ing Suez,  and  I was  desirous  of  pushing  forward  speedily,  I was 
detained  until  well  into  the  afternoon  of  the  next  day,  because,  as 
I was  told,  the  first  night’s  rest  must  be  at  Ayoon  Moosa,  in  sight 
of  Suez,  across  the  Red  Sea ; nor  was  my  case  an  exception  just 
here. 

In  describing  the  annual  pilgrimage  from  Cairo  to  Mekkeh, 
Ebers 1 says  : u After  resting  outside  the  walls  for  two  or  three 
days,  the  caravan  sets  out,  and  makes  its  first  day’s  journey,  of 
scarcely  more  than  four  hours,  as  far  as  the  first  station  at  Birkett 
el-Hajj,  or  the  ‘ Pilgrim’s  Lake.’”  A century  ago,  Niebuhr2  re- 
ported the  same  point  as  the  reach  of  his  first  day’s  journey  from 
Cairo ; and  yet  a century  earlier,  Thevenot3  named  it  as  his  first 
stopping  place  on  a similar  journey.  Four  centuries  ago,  Breyden- 
bach4  and  Eabri,5  making  a pilgrimage  from  Gaza  to  Sinai,  noted 
their  first  night’s  stopping  place  as  just  outside  of  the  town  of 
Gaza.  And  so  it  has  been  with  the  first  day’s  journey,  in  all  the 
centuries  in  the  unchanging  East. 

Hackett6  has  clustered  facts  in  illustration  of  this  point.  He 
says  of  a “ first  day’s  ” journey  : u On  that  day  it  is  not  customary 
to  go  more  than  six  or  eight  miles,  and  the  tents  are  pitched  for 
the  first  night’s  encampment  almost  within  sight  of  the  place  from 
which  the  journey  commences.”  Referring  to  his  own  experience 
in  this  line,  he  says  : “ The  only  reason  that  I heard  assigned  for 

1 Piet.  Egypt , II.,  130.  2 Reiseb,  pp.  212-217.  3 Reisen,  I.,  220. 

4 Itiner.  5 Evagator.  II.,  406.  6 Illus.  of  Scrip.,  pp.  15-20. 


144 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


starting  thus  late  and  stopping  so  early  was,  that  it  furnished  an 
opportunity,  if  anything  should  prove  to  be  forgotten,  to  return  to 
the  city  and  supply  the  deficiency.”  And  he  adds  : “ I find  from 
books  of  travels,  that  we  merely  did  in  this  respect  what  is  cus- 
tomary for  travelers  in  setting  forth  on  a journey ; and,  further, 
that  they  give  the  same  explanation  of  this  peculiarity  of  the  first 
day.”  Then  he  quotes  to  this  effect  from  Maundrell,  Richardson, 
Burckhardt,  Miss  Martineau,  and  others  ; and  he  shows  the  bear- 
ing of  this  on  the  narrative  of  the  return  of  the  parents  of  the 
Child  Jesus  to  search  for  him  in  Jerusalem,  when  at  the  close  of 
“ a day’s  journey  ” he  was  not  found  in  “ the  company.”1  And  in 
this  connection  he  notes  the  fact  that  the  improbability  of  such  a 
thing  as  this  natural  occurrence  is  one  of  the  objections  of  Strauss 
to  the  accuracy  of  the  Gospel  narrative.  Another  illustration  of 
imperfect  knowledge  as  the  basis  of  much  of  the  modern  “ de- 
structive criticism ! ” 

In  the  light  of  this  explanation,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  first 
“ three  days’  journey”  from  Sinai  northward  cannot  fairly  have 
been  much  more,  if  any,  than  an  ordinary  two  days’ journey;  and 
that  thirty  miles  is  quite  as  long  a distance  for  it  as  could  be 
counted  on.  Hence  a place  not  farther  away  from  the  Plain  er- 
Rahah  than  Erways  el-Ebayrig,  must  be  taken  as  the  first  encamp- 
ing station  of  the  Israelites,  at  the  close  of  that  “ three  days’  jour- 
ney.” 

And  so  the  encamping  and  the  journeying  w~ent  on.  "At  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed,  and 
at  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  they  pitched:  as  long  as  the 
cloud  abode  upon  the  tabernacle  they  rested  in  their  tents.  . . . 
And  so  it  was,  when  the  cloud  abode  from  even  unto  the  morning, 
and  that  the  cloud  was  taken  up  in  the  morning,  then  they  jour- 
neyed : whether  it  was  by  day  or  by  night  that  the  cloud  was  taken 


1 Luke  2 : 42-45. 


THE  TIME  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 


145 


up,  they  journeyed.  Or  whether  it  were  two  days,  or  a month, 
or  a year,  that  the  cloud  tarried  upon  the  tabernacle,  remaining 
thereon,  the  children  of  Israel  abode  in  their  tents,  and  journeyed 
not:  but  when  it  was  taken  up  they  journeyed.”1  There  is  cer- 
tainly not  much  ground  in  that  record  for  claiming  that  the  space 
between  encampments  was  uniformly  a day’s  distance. 

The  list  of  stations  in  Numbers  33:  1-49  would  seem  therefore, 
to  be,  not  a list  of  all  the  halting  places  of  the  Israelites,  but,  a list 
of  the  places  at  which  there  was  a formal  encampment.  Indeed  the 
Hebrew  word2  translated  variously  in  this  list,  “took  their  jour- 
ney,” “journeyed,”  “ departed,”  “ went,”  and  “ removed,”  implies, 
in  its  very  form,  a “ breaking  up,”  or  a “ pulling  up  stakes,”  as  on 
the  change  of  an  encampment.  Nor  is  there  any  place  twice  men- 
tioned in  this  list,  although  we  have  reason  to  suppose  that  during 
the  forty  years  the  host,  or  at  least  its  tabernacle  and  its  headquar- 
ters, encamped  more  than  once  at  the  same  place.3  For  example, 
in  this  list  of  stations,  it  is  recorded  that  “they  departed  from 
Hashmonah  and  encamped  at  Moseroth.  And  they  departed  from 
Moseroth,  and  pitched  in  Bene-jaakan ; ” and  so  on  to  Hor-hagi- 
dad,  and  Jotbathah.  But  in  Deuteronomy  10 : 6,  7,  it  is  said, 
that  they  “took  their  journey  from  Beeroth  of  the  children  of 
Jaakan  [the  wells  of  Bene-jaakan]  to  Mosera  ” and  so  on  to  Gud- 
godah  and  Jotbath.  The  order  of  the  stations  in  these  two  records 
is  reversed,  as  if  the  places  were  visited  in  one  order  in  going 
in  one  direction,  and  in  reverse  order  in  going  the  other  way  ; 4 but 
in  the  complete  list  of  stations  no  one  place  has  received  a 
second  mention,  unless  indeed  under  another  name,  and  that  for 

1 Num.  9 : 18,  21,22. 

2^p’l  Wayy^00  “and  they  broke  up.”)  See  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com., 
III.,  242. 

3 For  a full  discussion  of  this  point,  see  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  $$  30,  41 ; 
also  see  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib,  Com.,  as  above. 

4 See  Robinson,  in  Bib.  Repos.  Oct.,  1832,  p.  788. 

10 


146 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


an  exceptional  reason,  as  in  the  case  of  Kadesh — as  will  be 
shown. 

There  is  one  point  which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked,  while 
inquiring  if  the  order  of  stations  throws  light  on  the  proximity  of 
any  two  stations  named  consecutively.  The  same  record  that  says  : 
“ They  removed  from  Kadesh  and  pitched  in  Mount  Hor,”  says 
also : “ They  removed  from  Ezion-gaber  and  pitched  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Zin,  which  is  Kadesh/’ 1 Now  Ezion-gaber  is  known 
to  have  been  at  or  near  the  head  of  the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red  Sea 
— the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah.2  The  Israelites  when  making  their  jour- 
ney for  the  compassing  of  Mount  Seir,  went  “ through  the  Way  of 
the  ’Arabah,  [or  by  way  of  the  ’Arabah  Road,]  from  Elath  and 
from  Ezion-gaber ; ” 3 (and  the  Israelites  seem  never  to  have  been 
in  the  Way  of  the  ’Arabah,  except  at  its  southernmost  end  where 
it  compassed  Mount  Seir.)  Later,  it  is  declared  that  king  Solomon 
made  a navy  of  ships  in  Ezion-geber,  which  is  beside  Eloth,  on  the 
shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  “in  the  land  of  Edom.”4  Now,  if  the 
stations  named  consecutively  are  to  be  reckoned  as  only  a day’s 
distance  apart,  it  is  clear  that  Kadesh,  being  only  one  remove  from 
Ezion-gaber,  and  only  one  remove  from  Mount  Hor,  is  at  some 
point  which  is  only  a day’s  distance  from  either  of  those  two 
places.  This  in  itself  would  put  Jebel  Neby  Haroon  out  of  the 

1 Num.  33:  36,  37. 

2 Winer  (Bibl.Realworterb.  s.  v.  “ Eziongeber  ”)  discusses  this  site,  with  comprehen- 
siveness. He  would  find  it  at  ’Aszyiin  or  ’Assiun,  a place  referred  to  by  Makrizi, 
the  Eyptian  historian,  as  quoted  by  Burckhardt  ( Travels  in  Syria,  p.  511.)  Of  this 
place  Robinson  (Bib.  Res.  I.,  169/.)  thinks  no  traces  are  to  be  found;  and  he  would 
find  its  site  at  Wady  “ el-Ghudyan,  opening  into  el-’ Arabah  from  the  western  moun- 
tain, some  distance  north  of  ’Akabah.”  “ However  different  the  names  el-Ghudyiln 
and  Ezion  may  be  in  appearance,  yet  the  letters  in  Arabic  and  Hebrew  all  corres- 
pond.” Although  this  site  is  now  ten  miles  or  so  north  of  the  end  of  the  gulf,  Rob- 
inson thinks  that  formerly  the  waters  extended  thus  far.  “ This  probably  is  the  best 
site  for  it.”  (Smith- Hackett  Bib.  Die.  s.  v.  “Ezion-gaber,”) 

3  Deut.  2:  1-8.  * 2 Chron.  8:  17. 


KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS. 


147 


question  as  a site  of  Mount  Hor ; for  even  a straight  line  (and  it 
would  be  difficult  to  shorten  that)  between  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah 
and  Jebel  Neby  Haroon  would  be  not  less  than  three  days’  jour- 
ney ; if  indeed  it  were  less  than  four  or  five.1  Nor  have  any  sites 
for  Kadesh  and  Mount  Hor  been  named,  which  would  bring 
Kadesh  within  a day’s  reach  of  Mount  Hor  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  Ezion-gaber  on  the  other. 

In  short,  everything  combines  to  show  that  the  mention  of  two 
stations  in  juxtaposition,  in  the  record  of  the  Israelites’  journeyings, 
gives  no  indication  of  the  nearness  of  those  stations  to  each  other ; 
gives  no  reason  for  supposing  that  they  are  only  a day’s  distance 
apart.  Moreover  it  is  evident  that  in  some  cases  such  nearness  is 
an  impossibility. 

18.  KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS. 

In  the  review  list  of  stations  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  of 
Numbers,  the  name  of  Kadesh  does  not  appear  until  near  the 
close  of  the  forty  years’  wanderings ; 2 wdien  it  is  given  in  conjunc- 
tion with  Ezion-gaber  and  Mount  Hor,  as  already  noted.  Yet  it 
is  evident  that  Kadesh  was  first  reached  within  a short  time  after 
leaving  Sinai ; 3 moreover,  that  when  the  sentence  of  dispersion,  or 
wandering,  which  was  there  passed  upon  the  Israelites,  was  near- 
ing its  close,  there  was  a re-assembling  of  the  whole  congregation 
at  that  sanctuary-stronghold,  for  a new  move  Canaanward.4  The 
absence  of  any  early  mention  of  Kadesh  in  the  list  of  stations  has 
been  a cause  of  much  inquiry,  and  of  much  difference  of  opinion, 
among  scholars. 

1 Robinson  (Bib.  Repos.,  Oct.  1832,  p.  786),  says:  ‘‘From  Ezion-gaber  to  Kadesh 
. . . could  not  be  much  less  than  the  whole  length  of  the  great  valley  of  the  Ghor, — a 
distance  not  less  than  one  hundred  miles  [say  four  to  six  days’  journey]  whatever 
might  be  the  exact  situation  of  Kadesh.” 

2 Num.  33 : 36,  37.  3 Num.  13 : 26.  See  pages  19-24,  supra.  4 Num.  20  : 1. 


148 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


It  has  been  claimed  by  some/  that  the  mention  of  Kadesh  in 
this  list  is  in  reference  to  it  in  its  proper  place,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  first,  if  not  indeed  of  the  only,  visit  to  that  station  ; . . . and  that 
all  of  the  twenty  stations  preceding  it,  after  leaving  Sinai,  were 
visited  before  Kadesh  was  ever  reached.  But  this  view  of  the 
case  seems  to  be  as  inconsistent  with  the  Bible  narrative,  as  it  is 
improbable  on  its  face.1 2  An  examination  of  the  text  will  hardly 
fail  to  make  clear  the  truth  in  the  matter. 

The  narrative  records,  that  after  the  great  plague  at  Kibroth- 
hattaavah,  “ the  people  journeyed  from  Kibroth-hattaavah ; and 
abode  at  Hazeroth.”3  Hazeroth  was  therefore  the  second  encamp- 
ment from  Sinai.4  There,  again,  was  a delay.  There  “ Miriam 
and  Aaron  spake  against  Moses,”  and  Miriam  was  smitten  with 
leprosy.  “ And  Miriam  was  shut  out  from  the  camp  seven  days : 
and  the  people  journeyed  not  till  Miriam  was  brought  in  again. 
And  afterward  the  people  removed  from  Hazeroth,  and  pitched  in 
the  Wilderness  of  Paran.”5  The  third  encampment,  therefore,  was 
“ in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran.”  In  what  part  of  that  wilderness? 
Light  is  thrown  on  this  question  also,  by  the  narrative  itself.  It 
was  clearly  at  the  encampment  in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran  that  the 
spies  were  sent  into  Canaan.  The  record  is  explicit  on  that  point. 
“ And  Moses  by  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  sent  them  from 
the  Wilderness  of  Paran.”6  But  Moses,  after  this,  declares,  as  to 

1 So  Ewald  {Hist,  of  Israel .,  II.,  202,  note) ; Laborde  ( Com.  G'eog.  sur  V Exod .,  p.  113); 
Von  Gerlach  {Com.  on  Pent.,  in  loco) ; Ritter  (as  cited  in  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov., 

111.,  218) ; Lowrie  (in  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  at  Num.  14:  25) ; Palmer  (Des.  of  Exod., 

11.,  513/.)  : and  others. 

2 Kurtz  {Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  218  ff.),  while  showing  the  untenableness  of  this 
view,  deems  it  “ inexplicable  ” that  a careful  commentator  should  be  “ able  to  adhere 
to  so  unfortunate  a supposition,  which  is  expressly  contradicted  on  all  hands  by  the 
biblical  narrative,  and  even  in  itself  is  inconceivable.” 

3  Num.  11 : 33-35. 

* Num.  33  : 16,  17.  5 Num.  12 : 1-16. 

« Num.  13 : 3. 


KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS . 


149 


the  place  of  sending  : “ I sent  them  from  Kadesh-barnea  to  see  the 
land.”1  This  would  look  as  if  the  Wilderness  of  Paran  and 
Kadesh-barnea  were  used  interchangably  in  this  record  ; and  as  if 
to  put  this  point  beyond  all  question,  it  is  recorded  of  the  return  of 
the  spies : “ And  they  went  and  came  to  Moses,  and  to  Aaron,  and 
to  all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  unto  the  Wilder- 
ness of  Paran,  to  Kadesh.”2  That  would  seem  to  fix  it  as  plainly 
as  words  can  fix  it,  that  the  encampment  in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran 
was  the  first  encampment  at  Kadesh : and  this  being  so,  Kadesh- 
barnea  was  the  third  regular  encampment  after  leaving  Sinai. 

There  is  an  incidental  confirmation  of  this,  in  two  general,  or 
inclusive,  statements  of  the  first  journey  across  the  desert.  In 
Numbers  10 : 11, 12,  it  is  said,  as  preliminary  to  a detailed  account 
of  the  journey  ings  : “And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  twentieth  day  of 
the  second  month,  in  the  second  year,  that  the  cloud  was  taken  up 
from  off  the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  And  the  children  of 
Israel  took  their  journeys  out  of  the  Wilderness  of  Sinai ; and  the 
cloud  rested  in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran.”  That  this  statement 
covers  a series  of  moves,  instead  of  being  confined  to  a single 
stage,  is  evident  from  the  context ; for  it  is  after  this  that  the  nar- 
rative begins  in  detail : “ And  they  first  took  their  journey  ; ”3  and 
again  : “ And  they  departed  from  the  mount  of  the  Lord  three 
days’  journey;”4  and  so  on,  stage  by  stage.  Moreover  the  text 
itself,  in  the  Hebrew,  shows  that  it  is  a series  of  moves  which  is 
referred  to,  and  not  the  first  move  of  a series,  merely  : “ And  the 
sons  of  Israel  pulled  up  stakes  according  to  their  breaking  camps;5 
out  of  the  Wilderness  of  Sinai  [as  their  starting  point] ; and  the 
cloud  rested  [at  their  destination]  in  the  Wilderness  of  Paran.” 6 

1 Num.  32:  8.  * Num.  13:  26.  3 Num.  10:  13.  4 Num.  10:  33. 

5 DJTJJDD1?  ( Vayyis’oo  benai  Yisrael  lemse’aihem. 

6 See  Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  192,  with  quotations  from  Ranke  and  Heng- 

stenberg;  also  Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  III., 56 /. ; Schaff-Lange  Com.,  “Exo- 

dus and  Leviticus,”  General  Introduction,  p.  21. 


150 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Or,  as  the  similar  general  statement  in  Deuteronomy  1 : 19  gives 
it:  “And  when  we  departed  from  Horeb,  we  went  through  all 
that  great  and  terrible  wilderness,  which  ye  saw  by  the  Way  of  the 
Mountain  of  the  Amorites,  as  the  Lord  our  God  commanded  us  ; 
and  we  came  to  Kadesh-barnea.” 

In  other  words  the  first  great  move  of  the  Israelites  as  an 
organized  people  was  from  Sinai,  the  sanctuary  where  they  had 
received  their  formal  charter  of  nationality,  to  Kadesh-barnea,  the 
sanctuary  on  the  borders  of  Canaan,  whence  they  were  to  enter 
into  the  land  of  their  national  inheritance.  In  passing  over  the 
“ eleven  days  ” distance,  which  separated  these  sanctuaries  by  the 
course  they  journeyed,  they  encamped  at  only  two  intervening 
stations.  The  other  stops  were  but  for  bivouac. 

Yet  in  the  formal  list  of  stations,  in  Numbers  33 : 16-37,  the 
third  station  from  Sinai  is  given  as  neither  Kadesh-barnea  nor  the 
Wilderness  of  Paran ; although  we  have  seen  that  in  the  narrative 
of  the  journeyings  those  two  names  are  used  interchangeably  for 
the  encampment  next  after  Hazeroth.  “ Pithmah  ” here  appears 
as  the  third  station  in  the  list;  and  this  suggests  the  question 
whether  Pithmah  was  an  earlier  name  for  Kadesh. 

As  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  consider,1  “ Kadesh  ” was 
probably  not  the  original  name  of  the  encircled  stronghold  in  the 
mountains, — which  became  a sanctuary,  and  therefore  was  known 
as  “Holy”  (“Qadhesh,”)  when  the  tabernacle  found  a resting- 
place  there.  What  its  original  name  was,  is  now  the  question. 
“Pithmah”2  means,  literally,  Place  of  Pothem,  or  Place  of 
Broom.3  The  “ rothem,”  or  “ broom,”  is  the  desert-shrub,  or 
bush,  which  the  Vulgate  and  our  King  James  Version  wrongly 
translate  “juniper.”4  Its  Arabic  name  is  retem,5  or  rethem.6  It 

1 See  page  43,  supra.  2 The  Hebrew  is  nDTVI  ( Rithmah .) 

3 See  Gesenius,  and  Fiirst,  s.  v.  4 Job  30:  4;  1 Kings  19:  4,  5;  Psa.  120:  4. 

6 Freytag’s  Lex.,  s.  v.  Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  483. 


KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS. 


151 


is  the  bush  which  is  more  commonly  used  for  burning,  and  its 
roots  for  the  making  of  charcoal.1  It  certainly  supplies  a not 
unnatural  name  for  a station  on  the  desert’s  verge. 

The  recognition  of  the  site  of  Kadesh  in  the  station  Rithmah,  is 
not  a modern  thought  merely.  It  has  been  approved  by  many 
scholars  during  the  course  of  many  centuries.  Rabbi  Solomon 
ben  Isaac,  or  “ Rashi,” 2 the  famous  rabbinical  writer  of  the 
eleventh  century,  held  to  it.3  Since  his  day  it  has  been  repeatedly 
brought  out  by  critical  commentators  and  other  Bible  students; 
for  example:  Adrichomius,4  Raleigh,5  Fiirer, 6 Quaresmius, 7 Ains- 
worth,8 Drusius,9  Pool,10  Patrick,11  Calmet,12  Cellarius,13  Brown,14 
Robinson,15  Schwarz,16  Kitto,17  Fries,18  Kurtz,19  Keil  and  Delitzsch,20 
Wilton,21  Forster,22  Rowlands,23  Wordsworth,24  Tristram,25  Fausset,26 
Riehm,27  Edersheim,28  Espin  and  Thrupp ; 29  and  again  it  has 


1 Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syr.,  p.  483  ; Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  84,  189;  II.,  203,  205. 

2 This  rabbi,  called  “ Rashi  ” from  the  Hebrew  initials  of  his  name,  was  a famous 
Talmudic  scholar  of  French  birth,  who  lived  from  A.  D.  1040  to  A.  D.  1105.  His 
comments  on  Scripture  are  regarded  by  orthodox  Jews  as  of  very  high  authority. 

3 ’ al  ha-Torah,  at  Num.  33 : 18.  4 Theatrum  Terrx  Sanctx,  p.  215  a. 

5 Hist,  of  World,  Bk.  II.,  chap.  5,  § 4.  6 Reis-Beschreib.,  p.  354. 


7 Hist.  Theol.  et  Moral.  Terrx  Sanctx,  p.  25. 

8 Cited  in  Pool’s  Synops.  Grit,  at  Num.  33  : 18.  9 Ibid.  10  Annotations. 

11  Grit.  Com.  at  Num.  20 : 1.  12  Diet,  of  Holy  Bible,  s.  v.  “ Rithmah.” 

13  Geog.  Antiq.,  Vol.  II.,  maps  at  p.  390.  14  Diet,  of  Bible , s.  v.  “ Rithmah.” 

15 “On  the  Exodus”  in  Bib.  Repos.,  for  Oct.  1832,  p.  791.  He  speaks  of  “Rith- 
mah, probably  a station  in  the  desert  near  to  Kadesh;”  and  of  “Rithmah,  or  the 
desert  of  Kadesh.” 

16  Geog.  of  Pal.,  p.  212.  17  Scrip.  Lands,  “ General  Index,”  p.  56. 


19  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  244. 

21  The  Negeb,  p.  80. 
23  Imp.  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Rithmah.” 

25  Bible  Places,  p.  6. 


18  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  p.  57. 

20  Bib.  Gom.,  III.,  243/. 

22  Israel  in  Wild.,  pp.  122-128. 

24  Bible  with  Notes  at  Num.  33 : 18. 

26 Bib.  Gyc.,  s. v.  “Rithmah.” 

27  Handworterb.  s.  v.  “ Lagerstatten : ” “ Rithmah  is  ordinarily  held  to  be  the  station 
from  which  the  spies  were  sent  out.”  28  Exod.  and  Wand.,  p.  172. 

29  Speaker's  Gom.,  note  on  Num.  13 : 26,  and  at  33  : 18. 


152 


KADESII-BABNEA . 


appeared  in  the  margin  of  various  editions  of  the  Bible,  from  Leo 
Juda’s,1  and  the  Genevan,2  to  the  Bagsters.3  Yet  notwithstand- 
ing this  array  of  authorities,  the  identification  has  been  often  lost 
sight  of,  and  has  again  been  wrought  out  anew  from  the  text  by 
some  student  who  was  unaware  of  the  similar  work  done  by  so 
many  before  him.  Indeed  there  could  hardly  be  a better  illustra- 
tion than  is  here  furnished  of  the  liability  of  students  to  overlook 
the  successful  researches  of  predecessors  in  their  own  field  of 
inquiry.  In  my  own  case,  when  I had  tracked  out  the  identity  of 
B-ithmah  with  Kadesh,  by  the  above  described  process  of  proof,  I 
thought  it  an  original  discovery.  But  on  looking  up  the  authori- 
ties, I was  surprised  not  only  at  the  evidence  of  its  prominence  for 
centuries  back,  but  also  at  the  repeated  recurrence  of  the  very  error 
into  which  I had  fallen,  of  counting  an  old  truth  a new  discovery. 
Thus  the  scholarly  Wilton 4 refers  to  this  identification  as  if  it  were 
first  proposed  by  Kurtz,  and  adds : “ I had  been  fully  persuaded 
of  this  identification  many  years  before  I saw  it  advocated  by  Pro- 
fessor Kurtz.”  Kurtz,5  again,  gives  the  credit  of  the  discovery  to 
Fries,6  who,  in  turn,  probably  had  no  thought  of  claiming  it  as  an 
original  suggestion.  And  even  after  Wilton,  Forster7  came  out 
with  it  as  his  own,  expressing  surprise  that  no  suspicion  of  it  had 
been  awakened  in  modern  times.  But  all  this  is  only  added  proof 
that  the  evidence  of  the  truth  lies  in  the  Bible  text  itself ; and  that 
a careful  student  of  that  text  is  likely  to  find  it  for  himself,  even 
if  he  has  no  hint  of  it  from  any  one  of  his  many  predecessors. 

It  must  be  said,  however,  that  eminent  scholars,  as  for  instance, 

1 Published  at  Zurich,  A.  D.,  1550.  2 London,  A.  D.  1581. 

3 Comprehensive  Bible,  A.  D.  1846.  There  may  also  be  named,  as  approving  this 

identification,  a Dutch  Bible  published  by  Jacobszoon  and  Bonwenszoon,  at  Ley- 
den, A.  D.  1596,  and  Van  der  Palm’s  (Leyden,  A.  D.  1818.) 

4 The  Negeb,  (published  in  1863)  p.  80,  note. 

*Hist.  of  Old  Cov.,  III.,  215.  6 In  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854. 

7 Israel  in  Wild.,  chap.  III.,  (published  in  1865.) 


KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS. 


153 


Hengstenberg,  Baumgarten,  Lengerke,1  and  Lange,2  would  find  in 
the  station  “ Bene-jaakan,” 3 the  first  stop  at  Kadesh  ; while  Yon 
Raumer4  coolly  counts  up  the  stations  for  the  “ eleven  days  ” 5 be- 
tween Sinai  and  Kadesh,  and  by  this  sum  in  simple  arithmetic 
finds  Kadesh  at  Tahath.6  But  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  the  compar- 
ative claims  of  Bene-jaakan  and  Rithmah,  for  this  identification, 
to  the  Bible  text,  as  above  cited.  Yon  Raumer’s  count  is  of  no 
account. 

A suggested  objection 7 to  “ the  view  that  takes  Rithmah  to  be 
another  name  for  Kadesh  ” is  that  this  “ imputes  to  the  catalogue  ” 
of  stations  in  Numbers  “ an  arbitrariness  in  the  use  of  names  that 
would  make  it  worthless  for  that  purpose  for  which  it  was  evi- 
dently recorded.”  But  this  objection  appears  to  be  fully  met  in 
the  facts  of  the  case.  If,  as  is  probable,  Kadesh  was  not  the 
original  name  of  the  station  which  subsequently  bore  that  name, 
but  Rithmah  was, — then  it  would  be  both  natural  and  proper  to 
give  to  that  place  its  name  Rithmah,  in  the  mention  of  a visit  to  it 
when  Rithmah  was  its  only  name ; and  again  to  give  to  it  the 
name  Kadesh,  in  the  mention  of  a subsequent  visit  to  it  when  it 
had  acquired  the  name  of  Kadesh.  From  the  various  Bible  refer- 
ences to  the  place  in  question,  it  would  seem  that  its  original  name 
was  Rithmah ; that,  when  it  became  the  resting  place  of  the  taber- 
nacle, it  was  called  Kadesh ; that,  when  it  had  become  the  place 
where  sentence  of  judgment  was  passed  on  the  Israelites,  it  was 
called  En-mishpat  ;8  that,  when  it  was  a place  of  murmuring  and 
strife  to  a new  generation,  it  was  called  Meribah.  In  this  view  of 

1  See  Winer’s  Bibl.  Realworterb,  s.  v.,  “ Wiiste,  arabishe.” 

2  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  at  Num.  33:  32-35,  41-43. 

3  Num.  33 : 31,  32.  4 Der  Zug  der  Israeliten,  p.  41. 

5 Deut.  1:2.  6 Num>  33  . 2Q}  27. 

7 Lowrie,  in  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  at  Num.  14  : 1-45. 

8 Gen.  14:  7.  Supposing  the  Book  of  Genesis  to  have  been  written  during  the 

period  of  the  wanderings,  it  seems  natural  for  Moses  to  mention  this  place,  in  the 


154 


KADESH-BA  RNEA. 


the  case,  it  would  be  eminently  fitting  to  designate  the  place  as 
Ritlimath  on  its  first  visit,  and  as  Kadesh  on  its  second ; especially 
as  the  explanation  of  the  correspondence  and  of  the  difference  is 
made  clear  in  the  context. 

This  finding  the  probable  identity  of  Kadesh  with  Rithmah, 
gives  another  clue  to  the  locating  of  Kadesh.  The  name  Rithmah 
still  stands  in  the  desert,  in  its  Arabic  form — Aboo  Retemat.1 
Rithmah,  as  has  been  shown,  means  Place  of  Retem.  Aboo 
Retemat  means  the  same.  And  the  wady  which  bears  this  name2 
is  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  very  point  already  designated 
as  the  probable  halting  place  of  Kedor-la’omer,  because  of  its 
being  the  common  junction  of  all  the  roads  into  Canaan  on  that 
side  of  the  desert.3  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  tendency  of 
things  in  the  East,  to  have  the  original  name  thus  survive  all  later 
changes.4  Moreover  the  fact  that  this  name  Rithmah  just  here  is 
an  ancient  one,5  is  further  shown  by  its  Arabic  form  Retemat  being 
applied  to  a tribe  of  Arabs6  who  claim  the  region  as  their  home. 

record  of  Kedor-la’omer’s  march,  as  En-mishpat,  by  which  it  was  now  known  to  the 
Israelites ; and  to  add  the  explanation  that  it  was  the  place  which  they  had  before 
known  as  their  Kadesh. 

2 Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  189 ; Bonar’s  Des.  of  Sinai , p.  292. 

3 See  page  42,  supra. 

4 For  example : Accho  (Judges  1 : 13)  became  Ptolemais,  but  it  is  now  Akka,  or 
Acre ; Bethshan  (1  Sam.  31 : 10, 12  ; 2 Sam.  21 : 12),  or  Bethshean  (Josh.  17  : 11, 16 ; 
Judges  1:  27;  1 Kings  4:  12;  1 Chron.  7 : 29),  became  Scythopolis,  but  is  now 
Besan  ; Lydda  (Acts  9 : 32,  35,  38)  became  Diospolis,  but  is  now  Ludd ; and  so  on. 

5 The  Speaker’s  Commentary  (at  Note  on  Num.  13 : 26)  affirms  that  the  broom 
(retem)  “ probably  gave  a name  to  many  localities,”  and  mentions  one  place  else- 
where (in  quite  another  region)  which  bore  another  form  of  this  name.  But  as  the 
form  which  corresponds  with  “ Rithmah  ” is  found  only  at  this  one  point  in  all  the 
region  where  Kadesh  may  be,  or  has  been,  looked  for,  it  certainly  is  an  important 
element  in  the  locating  of  Kadesh.  It  is  true  that  it  might  have  been  in  half  a dozen 
places  ; but  in  fact  it  is  in  only  one — in  the  upper  desert. 

6 The  Beny  Retaymat  See  Burckhardt’s  Beduinen  und  Wahaby , pp. 

312,  602. 


KADESH  IN  THE  LIST  OF  STATIONS. 


155 


It  appears,  therefore,  that  an  examination  of  the  formal  list  of 
stations  tends  to  identify  Kadesh  with  Rithmah  of  that  list ; and 
that  there  is  a reasonable  trace  of  Rithmah  in  Wady  Aboo 
Retemat,  over  against  the  very  portion  of  the  ’Az&zimeh  moun- 
tain tract  within  which  all  our  studies  up  to  this  time  have  com- 
bined for  the  locating  of  Kadesh. 


And  this  completes  an  examination  of  all  the  references  to 
Kadesh-barnea  in  the  entire  Bible  text,  which  can  fairly  be  looked 
to  as  giving  any  indication  of  its  locality.  The  very  earliest  men- 
tion of  this  place  is  in  a connection  which  would  seem  to  put  it  in 
the  heart  of  the  Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  at  some  point  eastward 
of  Jebel  Muwaylih  and  of  Wady  Aboo  Retemat — near  which  all 
the  great  highways  of  the  desert  come  together  in  a common  trunk ; 
and  every  subsequent  mention  of  the  place  either  points  directly  to 
the  same  locality,  or  is  conformable  to  it.  Unless,  therefore,  some 
weighty  reasons  against  this  site  should  be  ascertained  outside  of 
the  Bible  text,  it  would  seem  to  be  fixed  within  the  limits  named, 
beyond  fair  questioning. 


KADESH-BARKEA. 


ANCIENT  REFERENCES  TO  IT  OUTSIDE  OF  THE 


BIBLE  TEXT. 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


1.  IN  THE  EGYPTIAN  RECORDS. 

Having  examined  the  various  Bible  references  to  Kadesh- 
barnea,  in  order  to  its  locating,  it  is  important  to  search  the  ancient 
records  outside  of  the  Bible,  to  ascertain  if  any  light  is  thrown  on 
this  site  by  references  to  it  in  them. 

First  in  order  come  the  Egyptian  records.  Indeed  it  is  only 
there , that  there  is  a possibility  of  any  evidence  contemporaneous 
with  the  Mosaic  narrative.  Modern  investigations  have  disclosed 
much  geographical  information  concerning  the  lands  of  the  Bible 
story,  in  the  monuments  and  papyri  of  ancient  Egypt ; and  it 
would  not  be  unreasonable  to  hope  to  find  incidental  references  in 
those  records,  to  such  a point  of  strategic  importance  in  military 
movements  as  Kadesh-barnea  would  seem  to  have  been  from  the 
days  of  Kedor-la’omer  onward. 

The  name  Kadesh,  or  Qodesh, — the  Sanctuary, — appears  very 
frequently  in  the  Egyptian  records,  as  designating  a stronghold  of 
the  Kheta,  or  Hittites,  in  the  north  of  Syria ; supposed  to  be  on 
the  Lake  of  Hums  ; and  there  are  good  reasons  for  thinking  that 
the  same  name  is  applied  at  times,  in  those  records,  to  one  site,  or 
more,  in  the  region  of  Syria,  or  Upper  Canaan  (the  land  of  the 
Rutennu,  or  the  Lutennu,  of  the  monuments),  apart  from  the  Hittite 
sacred  stronghold. 


159 


160 


KADESII- B ARNE  A . 


Kadesh  on  the  Orontes,  or  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites,  is  a centre  of 
interest  in  important  campaigns  of  the  Pharaohs  of  the  Eighteenth 
and  Nineteenth  dynasties;1  notably  Thotmes  III.,  Setee  I.,  and 
Rameses  II.  Its  capture  by  one  Pharaoh  after  another  is  cele- 
brated in  song  and  story  in  the  papyri  and  on  the  monuments,  and 
is  pictured  in  glowing  colors  on  the  temple  walls  of  Egypt.  The 
poem  of  Pentaur,2  reciting  the  valor  of  Rameses  the  Great  in  the 
overthrow  of  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites,  as  repeated  again  and  again 
in  manuscript  and  in  stone,  is  given  a living  freshness  to  the 
readers  of  to-day  by  the  graphic  pen  of  Ebers  in  his  historical 
romance  Uarda.  This  Kadesh,  however,  is  obviously  not  the 
Kadesh-barnea  of  the  Negeb. 

But  in  the  list  of  conquered  towns  of  Canaan  and  Syria,  in  the 
Hall  of  Pillars  at  Karnak,3  there  is  clearly  a second  Kadesh,  or 
Qodesh,  or  Kedes,4  apparently  (from  its  order  in  the  list)  farther 
south  than  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites ; and  again  there  are  frequent 
references  on  the  monuments  to  a Kadesh  of  the  Amorites,  or 
“ Kadesh  in  the  territory  of  the  Amorites.”  Brugsch,5  and  Lenor- 
mant  and  Chevallier,6  are  confident  that  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites 
and  Kadesh  of  the  Amorites  are  one ; but  they  do  not  ignore  the 
fact  that  a second  Kadesh  farther  south  in  Canaan  is  named  on  the 
Egyptian  monuments.  Chabas,  on  the  other  hand,  would  distin- 

1 See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  388-401 ; II.,  15-18  ; 46-65  ; Rec.  of  Past,  Vols. 
II.,  IV.,  VI.,  VIII.,  passim;  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  I.,  257;  Miss  Edwards’s  Up 
the  Nile,  pp.  204,  206,  436-443  ; Villiers  Stuart’s  Nile  Gleanings,  pp.  172-177  ; Tom- 
kins’s “The  Campaign  of  Rameses  II.  in  his  Fifth  Year  against  Kadesh  on  the 
Orontes,”  in  Tgans.  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Arch.,  Vol.  VII.,  Part.  3. 

2 De  Rouge’s  Le  Poeme  de  Pen- Ta- Our ; also  in  Rec.  of  Past,  II.,  pp.  65-78 ; and 

in  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  56-65. 

8 See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,!.,  389-394;  Conder’s  “Palestine  before  Joshua,” 
in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Special  Papers,”  pp.  177-194. 

* Comp.  No.  1 and  No.  48  in  that  list. 

6 Geog.  des  Alt.  JEgypt,  I.,  59-61,  67  ; also  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  394;  II.,  16. 

6 Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  II.,  150. 


IN  TIIE  EGYPTIAN  RECORDS. 


161 


guish  between  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites  and  Kadesh  of  the  Amorites, 
and  he  would  identify  the  latter  with  Kadesh-barnea.1 

This  is  a claim  worthy  of  our  notice.  In  incidental  proof  of 
the  non-identity  of  Kadesh  of  the  Hittites,  and  Kadesh  of  the 
Amorites, — the  southernmost  Kadesh, — Chabas  insists  that  the 
Egyptian  records  show  that  the  country  of  the  Amorites  was  at 
some  distance  southward,  from  the  region  of  the  Orontes;  and 
this  the  Bible  record  also  shows.  Moreover,  in  the  pictured,  or 
sculptured,  representation  of  the  campaign  against  Kadesh  of  the 
Amorites,  the  latter  place  is  “ represented  as  standing  on  a hill 
side,  with  a stream  on  one  side,  and  surrounded  by  trees;”2  and 
thus  it  is  “most  plainly  distinguished  from  the  Kodesh  of  the 
Kheta  (Hittites)  on  the  Orontes,  which  is  in  a flat  country  on  a 
recess  of  a lake,  girdled  by  a double  moat  with  bridges.”3 

Again  there  are  references  on  the  temple  walls  and  in  the  papyri 
to  a Qodesh,  or  Kadesh,  and  a Dapur,  or  Dapour,  or  Tapura,  in 
apparent  proximity,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  or  the  land  of  the 
Rutennu.4  And  in  an  inscription  above  a representation  of  the 
second  of  these  fortresses,  in  the  record  of  the  conquests  of  Ram- 
eses  II.,  in  his  temple  at  Thebes,  it  is  called  “ Dapur  in  the  land 
of  the  Amorites;”5  as  Qodesh  is  elsewhere  called  “ Kadesh  in  the 
territory  of  the  Amorites.”6  Among  the  proposed  identifications 
of  these  two  sites,  Chabas,7  followed  by  Tomkins,8  advocates 
Debir9  below  Hebron,  and  Kadesh-barnea  farther  southward. 

1 Etudes  sur  V Ant.  Hist.,  p.  266  f.  2 See  Bosellini’s  Monumenti,  LIII. 

3 Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham,  p.  84 ; also  his  paper,  as  above,  in  Trans,  of  Soc.  of 

Bib.  Arch.,  Vol.  VII.,  Pt.  3;  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  I.,  259;  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of 
Egypt,  II.,  48-52. 

4 See  “ Travels  of  an  Egyptian,”  in  Rec.  of  Past, Vol.  II.,  p.  Ill;  Brugsch’s  Hist, 
of  Egypt,  II.,  107-114;  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “Special  Papers,”  pp.  163-176. 

5  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  67 ; Birch’s  Egypt , p.  122. 

6  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  16.  7 Etudes  sur  V Ant.  Hist.,  p.  264  jf. 

8 Times  of  Abraham,  p.  84.  9 Josh.  10 : 36-39.  See  also  page  103,  jf., supra. 

11 


162 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Such  an  identification,  on  such  authority,  ought  not  to  be  passed 
without  examination,  in  a search  for  traces  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

There  are  weighty  objections  to  both  these  identifications,  and 
equally  weighty  reasons  in  favor  of  other  identifications.  The 
order  of  the  narrative  in  the  Anastasi  Papyrus,1  in  the  course 
of  which  Qodesh  and  Dapur  are  mentioned  together,  would  indi- 
cate the  upper  portion  of  Samaria  and  the  lower  portion  of 
Galilee,  rather  than  southern  Judah,  as  the  region  referred  to;2 
and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  place  of  the  fortresses  in  the 
inscriptions  on  the  walls  at  Thebes.3  Moreover,  the  pictured 
delineations  of  the  two  fortresses  in  question  furnish  evidence  that 
they  are  not  Debir  and  Kadesh-barnea,  but  that  they  are  Tabor4 
and  Kedesh-Naphtali ; 5 as  can  easily  be  shown. 

Whether  the  name  “ Tabor  ” is  or  is  not  connected  with  the 
ancient  name  “ Dapur”  or  “Tapura,”  of  the  Egyptian  records,  the 
name  of  Debooreyeh,6  at  the  western  base  of  Mount  Tabor,  is 
clearly  a record  of  the  ancient  Daberath  or  Dabareh,  of  the  days 
of  Joshua,7  and  so  of  the  days  of  the  Egyptian  records  in  question  ; 
as  also  of  the  Dabira  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome.8  And  the  fortress 

1  See  j Rec.  of  Past,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  109-116. 

2 See  Conder’s  “First  Traveler  in  Palestine,”  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “Special  Pa- 
pers,” 168/ 

3 Birch  {Egypt,  p.  122),  and  Brugsch  (Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  67,  110),  favor  this  iden- 
tification, although  they  do  not  attempt  any  proof  of  it.  Conder  (as  above,  p.  169) 
thinks  that  Dapour  is  “probably  the  Diblath  of  Ezek.  6:  14;”  but  he  misses  the 

connection  with  Debooreyeh  at  Mount  Tabor.  * Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  67. 

5 Brugsch  (Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  110)  identifies  the  Kadesh  here  linked  with  Dapur 
as  Kedes  (the  present  name  of  Kedesh-Naphtali.)  Conder  (as  above)  claims  the 
identification  as  his  own. 

6 See  Yon  Schubert’s  Reise,  III.,  174;  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  350  /. ; Wilson’s 
Lands  of  Bible,  II.,  90;  Van  de  Velde’s  Reise,  II.  324,  331 ; Biickert’s  Reise,  p.  327 ; 
Ritter’s  Geog.  of  Pal.,  II.,  314 ; Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Name  Lists,”  p.  125 ; Tris- 
tram’s Bible  Places,  p.  235. 

» Josh.  19  : 12 ; 21 : 28. 

8 Onomast.  s.v.  “Dabira.”  This  place  is  apparently  the  one  called  “Buria”  by 
William  of  Tyre  (Gesta  Dei,  p.  1026.) 


IN  THE  EGYPTIAN  RECORDS. 


163 


which  crowned  the  mountain  would  naturally  bear  the  name  of 
the  city  which  it  covered  and  protected.  Now  Mount  Tabor  is 
unique  among  mountains,  rising  as  it  does  all  by  itself  from  a level 
plain.  And  the  Egyptian  representation  of  the  fortress  of  Dapur 
shows  just  such  a mountain  as  that,  separate  and  distinct  from 
other  mountains,  and  with  a citadel  crowning  its  entire  surface.1 
This  agrees  most  admirably  with  the  Tabor  identification ; but  it 
is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  identification  at  Debir  below  Hebron, 
the  site  of  which  is  found  in  Dhahareeyeh,2  where  is  a ridge  or  hill 
side,  but  no  such  separate  mountain  summit. 

And  the  evidence  for  the  identification  of  the  lower  Kadesh,  of 
the  Amorites,  with  Kedesh-Naphtali,  in  the  Egyptian  delineation 
of  its  fortress,  is  as  distinct  and  positive  as  is  that  in  the  case  of 
Dapur.  As  has  been  already  mentioned,3  the  fortress  of  Kadesh  of 
the  Hittites  is  well  known  as  on  a plain,  and  as  surrounded  with  a 
bridged  moat ; while  the  lower  Kadesh  is  on  a hill-side,  with  a 
stream  below  it.  Now  the  site  of  Kedesh-Naphtali,  which  was  a 
royal  city  when  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan,4  and  which  was 
made  a city  of  refuge  after  their  occupation,5  is  described  by  trav- 
elers in  a manner  to  conform  it  peculiarly  to  the  Egyptian  pictur- 
ing. It  still  bears  the  name  Kedes,6  and  is  a short  distance 
northwest  of  Huleh  Lake,  or  the  Waters  of  Merom.  Tristram 
says  of  it : “ Situated  on  an  eastern  slope,  behind  it  rise  the  bare 
but  herbage-clad  hills,  where  flocks  and  herds  camped  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  year.  The  town  stood  on  a knoll,  where  it 
could  not  easily  be  surprised.  Just  below  it  gushed  forth  a copious 
spring,  caught  in  various  ancient  reservoirs,  for  the  use  of  man  and 

JSee  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  I.,  243;  Rawlinson’s  Hist,  of  Anc.  Egypt,  I„  482; 
also  Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham,  p.  86. 

2 See  page  103  jf.^supra.  3 See  page  161,  supra.  4 Josh.  12 : 22  ; 19:  32-37. 

5 Josh.  20 : 7-9 ; Judges  7 : 6-12  ; 2 Kings  15:  29;  1 Ohron.  6 : 76. 

6 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  III.,  364  ff.;  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Memoirs,”  Vol.  I., 
pp.  226-230. 


164 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


beast.  Then,  down  a gentle  slope,  there  were  several  hundred 
acres  of  olive  groves  ; and  beyond  these  a rich  alluvial  plain.” 
This  certainly  is  very  like  the  Egyptian  picture,  which  shows 
Qodesh  of  the  Amorites  “ as  standing  on  a hill  side,  with  a stream 
on  one  side,  and  surrounded  by  trees.”1 

It  is  a noteworthy  fact,  that  the  Talmud  refers  to  Kadesh- 
Naphtali  as  Kadesh  of  the  mountains,2  which  is  practically  the 
same  as  Kadesh  of  the  Amorites.  And  it  certainly  accords  better 
with  many  of  the  Egyptian  references3  to  the  Kadesh  of  the 
Amorites  as  in  reasonable  proximity  to  the  plain  of  Megiddo,  to 
suppose  that  this  Kadesh,  or  Kateshu,  was  Kadesh-Naphtali  rather 
than  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes. 

At  all  events  a careful  examination  of  the  facts  seems  to  show 
unmistakably, that  the  second  Kadesh,  or  Qodesh,  of  the  Canaan- 
itish  lists  in  Egypt,  is  not  Kadesh-barnea,  as  Chabas  and  Tomkins 
have  suggested.  Nor,  in  fact,  have  we  any  reason  for  supposing 
that  Kadesh-barnea  bore  the  name  Kadesh — by  which  to  be  noted 
on  the  Egyptian  records — before  the  presence  there  of  the  sacred 
tabernacle  of  the  Hebrews.  Moreover,  as  has  been  shown,4  it  is 

1 “ The  site  is  beautiful — the  summit  and  sides  of  a little  ridge  projecting  from 
wooded  heights  on  the  west  into  a green  plain.”  (Porter’s  Giant  Cities,  p.  271.) 

“ Unlike  the  many  towns  we  had  visited  on  rocky  hill-tops,  Kedesh-Naphtali  occu- 
pies a gently-sloping  descent  to  a pretty  vale.”  (Dulles’s  Ride  Through  Pal.,  p.  360.) 

2 “ Kedesch,  dans  la  montagne  de  Nephthali,”  quoted  from  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
Makkoth,  9 b.,  in  Neubauer’s  La  Geographic  du  Talmud,  p.  55. 

And  Porter  ( Giant  Cities,  p.  262)  says : “ The  Naphtalites  were  the  Highlanders 
of  Palestine.”  Naturally,  therefore,  those  who  preceded  them  in  that  region  were 
“ the  Highlanders” — the  Amorites — of  Canaan;  and  their  Kedesh  was  the  “ Kedesh 
of  the  Amorites.” 

3 See  “ Annals  of  Thothmes  III.  Account  of  the  Battle  of  Megiddo,”  in  Rec.  of 
Past,  II.,  37-58.  The  ‘‘Kateshu”  first  named  in  these  “ Annals”  (pp.  38,  43)  would 
seem  to  be  the  lower  Kadesh ; while  that  named  in  the  king’s  later  progress  (p.  51  /.) 
would  seem  to  be  the  upper  one. 

See  also  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  368-386 ; Lenormant  and  Chevallier’s  Anc. 
Hist,  of  East,  I.,  231  /. 


See  page  83  f,  supra. 


IN  THE  APOCRYPHA. 


165 


not  to  be  supposed  that  there  was  any  fortress  at  Kadesh-barnea  to 
be  captured  by  Hebrews  or  Egyptians. 


2.  IN  THE  APOCRYPHA. 

Next  in  order  to  the  Egyptian  records,  comes  the  Apocrypha. 
This  contains  but  a single  locating  of  the  southernmost  Kadesh ; 1 
and  that  is  in  a list  of  places,  in  Judith  1 : 7-10,  to  which  a mes- 
sage was  sent  by  u the  king  of  the  Assyrians  : ” “ To  all  that  were 
in  Samaria  and  the  cities  thereof,  and  beyond  Jordan  unto  Jeru- 
salem, and  Betane,  and  Chellus,  and  Kades,  and  the  river  of 
Egypt,  and  Taphnes,  and  Ramesse,  and  all  the  land  of  Gesem.” 

Here  it  is  evident  that  the  geographical  order  of  the  places 
named  is  from  “ beyond  the  Jordan/’ 2 or,  from  near  the  Jordan, 
southerly  and  westerly,  by  way  of  Jerusalem  toward  Egypt. 
After  Jerusalem  comes  “ Betane.”  This  is  probably  the  Beth- 
anoth3  of  Joshua  15  : 59,  fairly  identified  by  Wolcott4  in  theBayt 
’Ainoon  of  to-day,  a short  distance  north  of  Hebron ; this  latter 
identification  being  approved  by  Robinson5  and  Winer6  and 
Palmer7  and  Tristram,8  and  being  in  keeping  with  the  view  of 
Reland 9 and  Grove.10  Of  the  important  ruins  of  this  site,  with 
their  ancient  watering-place  cisterns,  Tristram  says : “ Near  them 
was  the  great  highway  to  Egypt,  and  traces  of  the  ancient  paved 

1 “Cades,  which  is  in  Galilee,”  or  Kedesh-Naphtali,  is  twice  mentioned,  in  I Mac- 
cabees 11 : 63,  73.  One  reading  of  Judith  5 : 4,  mentions  Kadesh-barnea. 

2 “Here  this  phrase  means,  not  as  commonly  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan,  but 
that  lying  west  of  the  river.”  ( Schaff-Bissell  Apocrypha , in  loco.) 

3 So  says  “ Movers,  followed  by  Fritzsche,  Bunsen’s  Bibelwerk,  and  other  authori- 
ties” ( Schaff-Bissell  Apoc.,  p.  169.)  The  suggestion  of  Rawlinson  (Herod.,  II.,  460) 
that  Batansea,  or  Bashan,  is  intended,  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  geographical 

order  of  the  text. 

*Bib.  Sac.,  February,  1843,  p.  57/.  5 Bib.  Res.,  III.,  281. 

6 Bib.  Realworterb.,  s.  v.  “ Betane.” 

7 Survey  of  West.  Pal.,  “Name  Lists,”  p.  397.  8 Bible  Places,  p.  68/ 

9 Palxstina,  p.  625.  10  Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Betane.” 


166 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


road  remain,  and  marks  of  wheel-ruts,  where  no  wheeled  carriage 
has  passed  for  centuries.”  This  indicates  a reason  for  naming  this 
station  on  the  way  Egyptward. 

Next  to  “ Betane  ” is  “ Chellus,”  or,  Chelus.1  This  is  naturally 
thought  by  Reland2  and  Grove3  to  be  the  Khulasah,4  or  Chalutza, 
or  Elusa,  which  was  a centre  of  pagan  worship,5  and  lay  south- 
westerly from  Beersheba.  Winer6  would  find  in  Chellus  the 
ancient  Halhul ; 7 but  as  this  name  still  stands  “ Halhul,”  8 it  seems 
hardly  probable  that  it  would  have  been  known,  at  any  time 
between  the  early  and  later  period,  as  “ Chellus.”  In  a list  of 
episcopal  and  arch-episcopal  towns  in  the  see  of  the  Patriarchate 
of  Jerusalem,  made  up  early  in  the  sixth  century,9  two  stations  at 
the  east  of  the  arch-episcopate  of  Gaza  are  named,  as  “ Chalasa  ” 
and  “ Cholus,” 10  or,  as  “ Elusa  ” and  “ Elas.” 11  The  second  of 
these  two  stations  would  correspond  yet  more  closely  with  Chelus ; 
and  this  is  not  improbably  the  place  referred  to  as  “ el-Khtilus,” 
in  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Polyglot  Bible,  as  standing  for  Gerar, 
in  Genesis  20  : 1,  2 ; 26  : 1,  as  mentioned  by  Reland,12  Robinson,13 
and  Stewart,14  rather  than  “ Elusa  ” as  they  supposed.  But  which- 
ever of  the  three  sites  be  accepted  for  Chellus,  the  direction  is  still 
southerly  and  westerly,  from  above  Hebron  toward  the  borders  of 
Egypt. 

After  “ Chellus,”  between  that  and  “ the  river  of  Egypt,”  or 
Wady  el-’Areesh,  comes  “ Kades.”  And  just  here  is  where  we 
should  expect  to  find  “ Kades,”  or  Kadesh-barnea,  in  view  of  all 

1 Schaff-Bissell  Apocrypha,  in  loco.  2 Palsestina,  p.  717. 

3 Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  u Chellus.” 

*Bib.  Res.,  I.,  201  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  385  /.,  423,  Bartlett’s  Egypt  to 

Pal.,  p.  401  /. 

5 Jerome’s  Vita  Hilarionis.  6 Bib.  Realworterb.,  s.  v.  “ Chellus.”  2 J0sh.  15:  58. 

8  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.  III.,  281/.;  Jerome’s  De  Locis  Hebraicis,  s.  v.  “Elul.” 

9  Quoted  in  the  Appendix  to  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  550  ff. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  552.  11  Reland’s  Palxstina,  pp.  217,  218.  12  Ibid.,  p.  805. 

13  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  202,  note.  u Tent  and  Khan,  p.  208. 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


167 


the  biblical  indications  of  its  site.  It  is  at  the  southern  extremity 
of  Palestine,  at  the  turning  point  westward  of  the  boundary  line 
toward  Wady  el-’Areesh.  And  so  the  Apocrypha  agrees  with  the 
Old  Testament  text  in  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

3.  IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 

And  now  for  the  help  of  the  rabbinical  writings,  in  our  search 
for  light  on  Kadesh-barnea  and  its  locating.  And  at  first  it  seems  a 
darkening  of  counsel  that  comes  to  us,  in  words  without  know- 
ledge ; but  those  words  will  bear  studying. 

In  the  Targums,  and  in  the  Talmud  instead  of  Kadesh,  and  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  we  find  another  term  substituted  ; namely, 
“ Reqam,”  or  “ Reqem-Giah,”  in  several  diverse  but  not  mate- 
rially different  forms.1  The  reason  and  significance  of  this  substi- 
tutionary term  has  been  a matter  of  much  discussion  and  of  no 
little  confusion  among  earlier  and  later  commentators.  An  added 
element  of  confusion  is  the  fact  that  the  same  term,  “ Reqem,”  is, 
in  one  instance  at  least,  applied  in  the  Talmud  to  Petra,2  or  the 
Rock  City,  at  the  east,  or  the  southeast,  of  the  Holy  Land. 

Josephus,3  followed  by  Eusebius 4 and  Jerome 5 and  many 


1 In  the  Targums  : 

The  Pseudo- Jonathan,  at  Num.  34 : 4,  and  elsewhere : KjtT J Dpi,  reqam  gee’a. 
The  Jerusalem : NJTJ1  Dpi,  reqam  deg aVd. 

Onkelos : Dpi,  reqam. 

In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  : 

In  Yalkoot,  § Ekeb,  rVKJ  Dpi,  reqem  gaih. 

In  Siphr6,  g Ekeb,  and  in  treatise,  Tosiftha,  Schebiith,  chap.  3,  HH’J  Dpi, 
reqem  geeah. 

In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud: 

In  Schebiith,  6:  1,  HplJI  Dpi,  reqem  dego'ah. 

2 In  Gittin,  1 : 1,  Dpi,  reqem.  3 Antiq.,  Bk.  IV.,  Chap.  7,  $ 1. 

4 Onomast.,  s.vv.,  “Arcem,”  “Petra,”  “ Recem.” 

5 De  Loc.  Heb s.vv.,  “Arcem,”  “ Petra,”  “ Recem.” 


168 


KADESLI-BA  UNEA. 


others,  suggested  that  this  name  Reqam — which  he  applies  exclu- 
sively to  Petra — was  given  in  honor  of  Rekem,  a Midianitish 
king  slain  by  the  Hebrews  under  Phinehas  on  the  plains  of  Moab, 
east  of  the  Jordan.1  But  as  this  name  is  applied  by  the  rabbis  to 
Kadesh,  the  sanctuary  of  the  Hebrews,  we  may  be  sure  that  it  had 
some  other  signification  than  this.  To  suppose  that  they  would 
call  that  sacred  site  by  the  name  of  an  accursed  chieftain  slain  by 
the  sword  of  the  Lord,  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  sup- 
pose that  the  early  Christians  of  Damascus  had  named  a church 
“ Ananias  ” in  honor  of  the  husband  of  Sapphira.2 

That  the  term  Reqam  in  the  rabbinical  writings  is  commonly 
applied  to  Kadesh -barnea,  and  that  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea 
as  thus  designated  corresponds  with  the  biblical  indications  of  its 
site — not  far  eastward  of  the  great  caravan  route  between  Egypt 
and  Syria — would  seem  clear  on  an  examination  of  those  writings. 
In  several  name-lists  of  places  given  in  the  Talmud,3  as  marking 
the  boundaries  of  the  Holy  Land,  the  starting  point  is  Askelon. 
Running  northward  along  the  western  boundary,  and  thence  east- 
ward and  southward,  the  line  indicated  by  these  lists  returns  along 
the  southern  side,  westerly  to  its  starting  point — Askelon.  On 
this  route,  “ Reqem-Giah  ” occurs  on  the  southern  line,  in  proxim- 
ity to  Askelon  and  “ the  great  road  which  leadeth  to  the  desert.” 
But  it  is  also  evident,  as  before  noted,  that  there  is  a second  Reqam 
— not  a second  Kadesh — referred  to  in  those  writings  as  on  the 
eastern  border  of  the  Holy  Land,  or  just  beyond  it.  This  Reqam 
is  probably  the  “ Petra”  mentioned  by  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and 
Jerome ; which  mention  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  doubt 
and  confusion. 

A careful  talmudic  scholar4  of  two  centuries  ago  touches  this 

1 Num.  31 : 1-8.  2 Comp.  Acts  5 : 1-11 ; 9 : 10. 

3 See  a table  of  these  lists,  facing  page  11,  in  Neubauer’s  Geog.  du  Talmud. 

4 Johannis  Othonis  Lex.  Rabbin.  Philolog.  (Geneva,  A.  D.  1675),  s.  v.,  “ Cadesh- 

Barnea.” 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


169 


point  when  he  says  : u 1 Kadesh-barnea/  and  1 Kadesh ? simply,  are 

translated  ‘ Rekam ? by  all  the  Oriental  interpreters Rekam 

was  the  boundary  of  the  land  of  Israel,  yet  so  that  it  was  to  be 
esteemed  as  outside  the  land.  . . . There  were  two  noteworthy  places 
named  Rekam  on  the  limits  of  the  land ; one  was  Kadesh  on  the 
southern  side ; but  the  other,  Kadesh  [Rekam]  on  the  eastern  side 
concerning  which  Rabbi  Nissim  speaks  in  Gittin  I.,  when  he  says, 
Rekam  [Petra]  itself  is  considered  as  the  east  of  the  world — as 
Gentile  territory,  not  as  Israelitish  territory.”  The  passage  in 
Gittin  here  referred  to,  shows  that  there  is  an  eastern  “ Rekam  ” 
(as  Josephus  and  others  say  Petra  is  called)  ; but  it  does  not  show 
that  there  is  an  eastern  Kadesh.1 

The  learned  Lightfoot,2  tracking  this  matter  “ by  the  light  of 
the  Talmud,”  notes  that  “ the  Eastern  interpreters  ” render  Kadesh 
by  “ Rekam,  or  in  a sound  very  near  it ; ” and  that  there  are  two 
places  mentioned  as  Rekam,  by  those  interpreters,  “ in  the  very 
bounds  of  the  Land, — to  wit,  the  southern  and  eastern  : that  is  a 
double  Kadesh.”  Then  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  “ of  Kadesh,  or 
Rekam,  in  the  south  part,  there  is  no  doubt ; ” while  in  his  opin- 
ion there  was  not  a second  Kadesh.  His  conclusion  is : “ That 
that  Kadesh,  to  which  they  [the  Israelites]  came  in  the  fortieth 
year  (which  is  called  Meribah,  Numbers  20  : 13),  is  the  same  with 
Kadesh-barnea  is  clear  enough  from  hence, — that  Meribah  in 
Kadesh  is  assigned  for  the  southern  border  of  the  Land  (Ezekiel 
47 : 19) ; which  border  of  old  was  Kadesh-barnea  (Numbers 
34  : 4 ; Joshua  15  : 3).” 

If,  indeed,  it  could  be  found  that  the  term  Reqam  has  a signifi- 
cation applicable  alike  to  Kadesh-barnea  and  to  Petra,  it  would  at 
once  make  clear  the  cause  of  all  this  confusion  in  the  references  to 
these  two  places  by  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  for  now  twenty 

1 See  Mischna,  with  Maimonides’  notes  (Amsterdam  edition),  p.  415. 

2Horx  Heb.  et  Tal. , Yol.  I.,  pp.  19-21. 


170 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


centuries,  more  or  less.  Is  such  a solution  of  the  problem  practi- 
cable? We  have  seen1  that  Sel’a  was  first  applied  to  Kadesh- 
barnea,  and  afterwards  to  Petra ; and  that  confusion  was  possible 
from  the  use  of  that  term  interchangeably  as  the  designation  of  the 
two  places.  Is  there  anything  like  this  in  the  two-fold  use  of  the 
term  Reqam  ? 

It  is  somewhat  strange  that  no  student  of  this  subject  has  noted 
the  fact  that  rikham ,2  or  rukham,  a close  equivalent  of  “ Reqam/’ 
is  to-day  an  Arabic  term  for  “rock,”  and  therefore  might  be 
applicable,  as  is  the  Hebrew  Sel’a,  to  both  Kadesh-barnea  and 
Petra.  The  primitive  meaning  of  the  Arabic  word  rukham  is  of 
that  which  is  split  or  stratified,  parted  or  piled  in  layers ; and  the 
word  is  often  applied  to  marble,3  or  lime  stone,  or  alabaster : 4 but 
it  is  also  used  in  designation  of  rock  of  all  kinds.  For  example, 
in  a modern  Arabic  work  on  the  geography  of  Egypt,5  a reference 
is  made  to  the  “ red  rukham,” 6 or  the  syenite  granite,  of  Aswan ; 
and  a^ain  the  various  rocks  of  an  entire  district  are  treated  under 

O 

the  general  head  of  “ Rukham.” 7 

The  word  “Ruqeem”8 — almost  identical  with  the  Hebrew  “Re- 
qam ” — occurs  once  in  the  Quran.9  Its  meaning  there  has  been 
another  puzzle.  As  Sale 10  says  of  it : “ What  is  meant  by  this 
word  the  commentators  cannot  agree.”  But  among  other  proposed 
explanations,  “ some  will  have  it  to  be  the  name  of  the  mountain  ” 

1 See  page  124  /,  supra. 

2 See  Lane,  Freytag,  and  the  Jesuits’  French  Arabic  Lexicons,  s.  v. 

3Abulfeda’s  Tab.  JEgypt.,  p.  14.  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “Name  Lists,”  p.  405. 
“Rukham,  white  marble.”  Also,  Freytag’s  Lex.  Arab.  Lat.,  s.  v.  “rukham.” 

4 Catafago’s  Arabic  Die.,  s.  v.  “ rukham.” 

s Fikry’s  Geog.  of  Egypt,  Cairo,  A.  H.  1296.  6 Ibid.,  Part  II.,  page  74. 

T Ibid.,  ‘i*y 

9 Sura  18.  v.  8.  In  the  Arabic  Version  of  Walton’s  Polyglot  Bible,  at  Gen.  14:  7 

the  word  “Ruqeem,”  given  for  “ Kadesh  ” is  identical  with  that,  as  above,  from  the 

Quran. 

10  In  Koran  with  Notes , p.  238,  note. 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


171 


in  which  was  a cave,  referred  to  in  the  context;  while  others 
apply  it  to  a legend  of  three  men  shat  in  a cave  by  “ the  falling 
down  of  a vast  stone  which  stopped  the  cave’s  mouth/’  who  “ were 
miraculously  delivered  by  the  rock’s  rending  in  sunder  to  give  them 
passage.”  Either  explanation  consists  with  the  idea  of  “ Ruqeem  ” 
meaning  a rock-mountain  with  its  cave  sides,  like  Petra ; or  again 
meaning  a smitten  Rock,  like  that  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

It  is  evident  from  this  showing  of  the  case,  that  the  Arabic  term 
Rikham  might  not  unnaturally  be  applied  interchangeably  to  the 
Rock  of  Kadesh,  and  to  Petra — the  Rock  City.  And  now,  apart 
from  the  fact  of  the  admitted  resemblance  of  the  Arabic  and  the 
ancient  Hebrew,  it  is  worth  our  while  to  consider  the  traces  of 
words,  similar  in  form  and  meaning  to  the  one  in  question,  in  the 
cognate  Syriac  and  Hebrew.1 

Jerome  distinctly  states  that  Petra  in  Edom  is  called  Rekem  by 
the  Syrians  ; 2 although  Eusebius  says  that  it  is  the  Assyrians  who 
so  name  it.3  In  the  Peshitto  Syriac  Version,4  at  Numbers  34  : 4, 
“ Kadesh-barnea  ” is  supplied  by  Reqam  degaia ,5  and  in  the 
accompanying  Latin  Version  this  is  rendered  Recern  Superbam — 
Reqam  the  Lofty,  or  perhaps  here,  the  Pre-eminent.  A literal 
rendering  of  the  Syriac  would  make  it  simply  Reqam  of  the  Plain. 
We  have  already  seen  that  the  word  Reqam,  here  ascribed  to  the 
Syriac,  is  in  use  in  the  talmudic  Hebrew ; and  this  brings  us  to 
the  question  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  these  languages. 

In  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Syriac6  the  word  ragam 7 means 
stoning,  or  to  stone.  For  example,  this  is  the  word  used  of  the 
proposed  stoning  of  Moses  and  Aaron  by  the  rebellious  Israelites 
at  Kadesh-barnea,8  when  the  people  were  dismayed  at  the  report 


1 In  the  tracking  of  these  philological  proofs,  I am  particularly  indebted  to  the 
scholarly  assistance  of  Mr.  John  T.  Napier,  whose  services  at  many  other  points  in 
my  work  I have  elsewhere  acknowledged. 

2 Be  Loc.  Heb.,  s.  v.  “ Petra.”  3 Onomast.,  s.  v.  “ Petra.”  4 Walton’s  Polyglotta. 

51  1 5 ^OQ  5 6 See  Castellus’s  Syriac  Lexicon.  7 8Num.  14:  10. 


l*k* 


172 


KADESH-BA  RNEA. 


of  the  spies ; and  again  of  the  stoning  of  the  sabbath-breaker/  in 
the  days  following.  Furst  suggests  that  the  root  of  this  word  was 
a noun  regem?  “ a stone-heap and  he  directly  suggests  its 
connection  with  “ Reqem  ” 3 — the  name  of  a town  in  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin  ;4  where  he  thinks  it  may  have  referred  to  existing  stone 
heaps  as  it  similarly  might  apply  to  stone  structures  at  Petra.5 

Another  accomplished  Oriental  scholar6 7  says  of  the  root  meaning 
of  reqam : “ Comparing  the  Arabic  ( ^)) ; the  Syriac  (Sao  5);  and 
the  Hebrew  (Dpi) ; I should  take  the  radical  meaning  to  be 
‘ strike/  ‘ thrust/  whence 2  1 dot/  ‘ excavate/  So  in  Arabic  the  verb 
means  ‘ to  write  ’ (‘  cut  letters,  or  print  ’),  and  ‘ to  embroider/ 
The  latter  is  also  the  sense  in  Syriac  and  Hebrew — ‘ to  embroider/ 
from  ‘striking/  or  ‘piercing’;  whence  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
(□pi)  seems  to  be  ‘ pierced/  that  is  perhaps,  ‘ excavated/  an  appro- 
priate name  for  Petra,  and  for  the  city  mentioned  by  Abu’l  Feda.” 
It  will  be  seen,  farther  on,  that  the  root  meanings  here  proposed 
have  like  appropriateness  with  the  one  suggested  by  Furst  in 
application  both  to  Petra  and  to  the  “ struck  ” or  “ pierced  ” Rock 
of  Kadesh — the  “Fountain  of  Miriam/’ 

Thus  it  certainly  may  be,  that  the  Arabic  rikhdm,  rukham,  and 
ruqeem ; the  Syriac  reqam  and  ragam  ; the  Chaldee  reqam ; and 
the  Hebrew  ragam , reqam , and  reqem , are  vestiges  in  variety  of  a 
common  Semitic  root/  having  reference  to  “ stone  ” or  “ rock.” 

1 Num.  15  : 35,  36. 

2 Dll.  Fiirst’s  Heb.  u.  Chald.  Worterb.,  s.  v.,  “ ragam.”  3 Dpi. 

4 Josh.  18:  27.  Grove,  in  Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.,  “ Rekem,”  suggests  a 

trace  of  this  name  in  the  present  “Ain  Karim,”  west  of  Jerusalem;  the  reputed 
home  of  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth.  This  suggestion  is  adopted  by  Fausset  (Bib.  Cyc., 
s.  v.),  and  Young  ( Analytical  Concordance ). 

5 Yet  Furst  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  of  the  connection  of  Reqem  with  Petra 
and  Kadesh,  as  bearing  on  this  suggestion  of  his. 

6 Professor  C.  H.  Toy  (of  The  Harvard  University  Divinity  School),  in  a private 
letter  to  the  author. 

7 For  the  close  relationship  of  the  various  Semitic  languages,  see  Fischer’s 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


173 


That  variations  similar  to  these — through  changes  of  the  gutturals 
and  palatals,  and  of  the  vowels — are  frequent  in  the  languages  re- 
ferred to,  is  a fact  familiar  to  every  scholar.1 

If  this  conclusion  be  accepted,  the  mystery  of  “ Reqem,”  as 
applied  alike  to  the  Rock  at  Kadesh,  and  the  Rock-City  Petra,  is 
solved  ; and  the  confusion  growing  out  of  the  interchange  of  names 
is  accounted  for.  And  the  designation  of  Kadesh  as  Reqam 
de-Geeah,2  or  Reqam  of  the  Plain,3  is  a natural  one,  as  over  against 
Reqam  of  the  Mountains — in  Edom,  or  Moab. 

That,  indeed,  the  term  “ Reqam  ” has  reference  to  a place  of 
rock,  or  of  rocks,  whenever  we  know  the  place  referred  to,  is 
clear ; and  the  inference  is  legitimate  that  it  always  means  this. 
As  applied  to  “ Petra,”  this  is  obvious ; and  this  covers  the  various 
mentions  of  it  in  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome. 

Ibn  Hauqal,4  an  Arabian  traveler  and  geographer,  writing  in 
the  tenth  century,  tells  of  “ Reqem,”  5 a town  situated  near  the 
Belqa,  where  “all  the  walls  and  houses  are  of  stone,  in  such  a 
manner  that  one  would  imagine  they  were  all  of  one  piece.” 
Three  centuries  later,  Abulfeda  (Aboo’l  Feda),  a hereditary  Emeer 
of  Syria,  who  wrote  works  on  geography,  both  as  an  eye  witness 
and  as  a student,  made  mention6  of  this  same  place,  “ Er-Ruqeem, 
a small  town  situated  near  El-Belqa ; 7 the  houses  of  which  are  all 


“ Anleitung  zum  Stadium  des  Midrasch  und  Talmud,”  pp.  13-34,  in  Winer's  Chal- 
daische  Grammatik. 

1 Concerning  the  interchanging,  in  Hebrew,  and  in  the  other  Semitic  dialects,  of 

po.(q);  ,(g ) ; n (kh) ; see  the  articles  on  these  letters,  in  Eli  Smith’s 

“Essay  on  the  Pronunciation  of  the  Arabic,”  in  Appendix  to  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res., 
III.  (first  edition) ; also  Robinson’s  Gesenius,  and  Adolf  Wahrmund’s  Handbuch 
der  neu-Arabischen  Sprache , I.,  p.  11,  § 36. 

2 See  page  167  /,  supra. 

3 Compare  the  Hebrew  K'l,  gaye,  gaV  ; the  Arabic  x^  ~^,jeeah  : 


which  all  have  the  meaning  of  “ a plain,”  or  of  “ a low-lying  place.” 

4 Ouseley’s  Oriental  Geog.  of  Ebn  Haukal,  p.  40.  N) 

6 Tabula  Syrix,  p.  11. 

7 “ El-Belqa  is  one  of  the  districts  of  Esh-Sharat,  [and  is]  a fertile  land  having 


174 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


cut  out  of  the  live  rock,  as  though  they  were  one  rock.”1  The 
Arabic  word  “Ruqeem”2  as  given  here  is  identical  with  that 
found  in  the  Quran  and  in  the  Arabic  Version,  as  already  quoted. 
Elsewhere,  Abulfeda3  refers  to  this  Er-Ruqeem  as  north  of  Kerak, 
and  not  far  from  it.  Although  no  attempts  to  identify  this  place 
seem  to  have  been  made  in  modern  times,  it  would  appear  worthy 
of  notice  that  Seetzen4  found  a “Bet  el  Kerm,”  in  the  region  re- 
ferred to  by  Abulfeda;  between  Kerek  and  the  Belqa.  Burck- 
hardt5  visited  this  place,  which  he  speaks  of  as  “ the  ruins  of  an 
ancient  city  called  ‘ Beit-Kerm/ 6 belonging  to  which,  on  the  side 
of  the  road,  are  the  remains  of  a temple  of  remote  antiquity.” 
Again  it  was  visited  by  Irby  and  Mangles,7  who  think  that  the 
temple  was  Roman,  resembling  that  which  they  “ took  to  have 
been  a palace  at  Petra.”  More  recently  it  was  seen  by  De  Saulcy,8 
who  speaks  of  the  temple  as  “ magnificent,”  a “ marvelous  struc- 
ture.” Tristram9  also  saw  the  ruins  in  passing.  Not  only  is  there 
a suggestion  of  the  name  “ Ruqeem  ” in  the  name  “ Kerm  ” — the 
consonants  in  the  two  words  being  identical,  and  the  change  in 
their  order  not  an  unusual  one ; 10  but  the  very  name  “ Rakim  ” is 

Heshbon  as  its  metropolis.  This  [Heshbon]  is  a little  town  situated  in  the  valley, 
planted  with  trees  and  grain,  and  having  gardens  and  tilled  fields.  That  valley,  in- 
deed, stretches  even  to  the.  Ghor,  or  plain  of  Zoghar.  El-Belqa  is  distant  from 
Jericho  one  day’s  journey  to  the  east.”  (Abulfeda,  as  above.) 

1 For  other  Arabic  references  to  this  place,  see  Gildemeister’s  “ Palastinakunde  aus 
Arabischen  Quellen,”  in  Zeitschrift  des  Deutsch  Pal.  Ver.,  Band  VI.,  p.  9. 

2 yJI,  cr- Ruqeem. 

3 Annales  Moslem.,  quoted  at  third  hand  in  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  522. 

4 Reisen , I.,  411.  5 Travels  in  Syria,  p.  376. 

e 0.-0  i Travels,  p.  458. 

8 The  Dead  Sea,  I.,  293-296.  9 Land  of  Moab,  p.  125/. 

10  Concerning  the  common  transposition  of  consonants,  in  Semitic  languages,  see 
Rodiger-Davidson’s  Gesenius’s  Ileb.  Gram.,  Chap.  II.,  § 19  (5). 

As  already  stated,  Grove  and  others  think  that  the  name  “ Karim”  (’Ayn  Karim), 
west  of  Jerusalem,  may  be  a vestige  of  ‘ Reqem,”  by  such  a transposition  of  the  con- 
sonants. According  to  the  “ Name  Lists  ” of  the  Survey  of  Western  Palestine  (page 
280),  this  Karim  ( ) differs  in  one  consonant  from  the  “ Qerm  ” ( * ^ ),  as  re- 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


175 


reported  by  Canon  Tristram  as  still  existing  in  that  region ; be- 
tween Kerak  and  the  Belqa. 

It  has  been  thought  by  many  that  there  was  a Petra  in  Moab, 
as  well  as  a Petra  in  Edom.  Leake,  the  editor  of  Burckhardt’s 
Travels/  has  given  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Petra  of  Moab 
— which  he  would  identify  in  Kerek — was  referred  to  by  Diodorus 
Siculus,  in  his  story  of  the  defence  of  Petra  against  Demetrius. 
Yon  Raumer2  has  argued  strongly  in  the  same  direction.  Reland3 
and  Robinson,4  while  not  accepting  this  conclusion,  admit  that 
there  are  references  by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Athanasius,  which, 
taken  without  explanation,  would  seem  to  show  two  Petras ; one 
in  “ Palestine/’  and  one  in  “ Arabia.”  Cellarius5  is  positive  that 
there  were  two.  Now  if  there  was  a Petra  in  Moab,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  that  was  the  Petra  which  Josephus6  tells  of  as 
called  Arekeme,  after  the  name  of  its  founder ; for  the  king 
Rekem,  to  whom  Josephus  refers,  fell  on  or  near  the  plains  of 
Moab,7  and  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any  connection  with  Edom. 
If  Arekeme  was  a compound  of  Ar  and  Rekem,  as  certainly  is 

ported  by  Burckhardt  ( Travels  in  Syria,  page  376),  in  the  land  of  Moab ; the  latter 
being  identical  with  the  Hebrew  “ Eeqem  ” ; but  this  difference  may  be  only  a seem- 
ing one.  (See  Preface  to  “ Name  Lists.”)  It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  Thomson 
( Central  Palestine  and  Phoenicia , — Land  and  Book, — p.  58)  translates  the  “ Karim  ” 
of  Judea  as  “ vineyards,”  while  Tristram  {Land  of  Moab,  p.  133)  gives  the  same 
meaning — “ vineyards  ” — to  the  “ Kurm  ” near  Kerak.  And  again,  Palmer  {Res.  of 
Exod.,  II.,  pp.  352,  367,  373)  has  shown  that  the  ancient  vineyards  of  those  regions 
were  often  composed  of  “ small  stone-heaps,  formed  by  sweeping  together  in  regular 
swathes,  the  flints  which  strew  the  ground  ” ; and  that  along  these  the  grapes  were 
trained,  and  they  still  retain  the  name  of  teleildt  el-’anab,  or  ‘grape  mounds.’” 
Moreover,  he  finds  these  mounds  called  also  “ rujum  el-kurum,  or  vineyard  heaps.” 
{Ibid.,  II.,  411.)  According  to  this,  whether  the  anagram  be  rukim  or  kurim,  it 
might  fairly  mean  ‘‘stone-heaps.”  But  this  is  merely  incidental.  If  nothing  more, 
it  is  certainly  curious  as  a coincidence. 

1 Preface,  viii.-xi.  2 Paldstina,  pp.  451-465 ; also,  p.  276. 

3 Paloestina,  pp.  926-934.  4 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  522  ff. 

5 Geog.  Antiq.,  Lib.  III.,  Cap.  14.,  § 29,  p.  580. 

6 Antiq.,  Bk.  IV.,  chap.  7,  § 1.  7 Num.  31 : 1-12. 


176 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


possible,  the  prefix  may  have  stood  for  the  word  meaning  “ a city;” 1 
or  for  the  name  of  a chief  city  of  Moab,  sometimes  used  for  Moab 
itself  ;2  or  again  for  a simple  article.3  In  the  first  case  the  com- 
pound word  would  mean  Rock-City ; in  the  second  case  Moab- 
Rock ; in  the  third  case  merely  The  Rock. 

If  again  there  was  a Petra  in  Moab,  it  may  well  be  supposed 
that  the  Er-Ruqeem  of  Abulfeda  was  that  Petra;4  and  that  traces 
of  its  name  are  still  found  in  “ Beit  Kerm  ” and  “ Rakim,”  near 
Kerek.  But,  however  this  may  be,  it  is  clear  that  wherever  we  can 
fix  the  name  Ruqeem,  we  find  that  it  refers  to  a place  of  stones  or 
of  rock ; and  this  wTe  may  fairly  take  to  be  its  meaning  in  all  cases. 

But  just  here  it  maybe  objected  that  the  Rock  of  Kadesh  was  a 
cliff,  rather  than  a small  and  detached  rock ; and  that  while  the 
term  reqam  would  possibly  apply  to  the  smitten  rock  ( tsoor ) of 
Horeb,  it  would  be  inappropriate  to  the  more  imposing  Rock  ( Sel’a ) 
of  Kadesh.5  In  answer  to  this  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the 
rabbins  did  not  always  distinguish  between  the  two  rocks  of  Horeb 
and  Kadesh  ; or  rather,  that  they  held  that  the  rock  smitten  at 
Ploreb  was  miraculously  carried  forward  to  Kadesh,  and  thence 
along  all  the  route  of  the  Israelites,  and  at  last  found  its  place  in 
the  Sea  of  Galilee,  where  its  marvelous  power  continued  to  mani- 
fest itself.6 

The  Jewish  tradition  was  that  this  rock  was  a “ block  of  stone, 
round  like  a beehive,”  and  pierced  with  twelve  holes,  from  which 
flowed  the  streams  for  the  twelve  tribes.7  Accompanying  the 

1 Tjp,  eer.  2 Num.  21 : 15,  28;  Dent.  2:  9,  18,  29. 

3 Sx  al ; actually  a weak  demonstrative  pronoun,  which  passed  into  an  article. 

4 Schultens  (as  quoted  in  Kohler’s  Notes  to  Abulfeda’s  Tabula  Syrice,  p.  11),  and 

Von  Raumer  ( Palastina , p.  276),  would  find  Petra  in  this  Er-Ruqeem. 

5 See  page  124  f, supra. 

6 See  Baring-Gould’s  Legends  of  Patriarchs  and  Prophets,  p.  294/.;  Buxtorfs  Syn. 
Jud.,  Chap.  XI.  ; Lightfoot’s  Horse  Heb.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  295 ; also  Franz  Delitzsch’s 
Notes  on  “ The  Rock  that  Followed  Them,”  in  “ The  Independent.”  for  Dec.  7, 1882. 

* According  to  the  Monkish  traditions,  this  Rock  was  miraculously  carried  back 


IN  THE  RABBINICAL  WRITINGS. 


177 


Israelites  in  their  marches,  this  rock  furnished  their  water  supply 
in  all  the  desert  wastes.  When  the  cloud  rested,  and  the  taber- 
nacle was  formally  put  up,  the  rock  was  accustomed  to  take  its 
place  in  the  tabernacle  court.  Then  the  princes  of  the  people 
would  come  and  direct  with  their  staves  the  courses  of  the  streams 
for  the  several  tribes ; and  the  water  would  flow  so  as  to  give 
drink  to  all,  “ to  each  man  in  the  door  of  his  tent.” 

This  rock  was  called  the  Fountain  of  Miriam,  and  the  rabbins 
held  that  it  was  because  of  Miriam’s  death  at  Kadesh-barnea  that 
once  more  “ there  was  no  water  for  the  congregation,”1  and  that 
the  Lord  directed  Moses  to  speak  to  the  rock  that  it  might  again 
give  forth  its  water  as  in  the  days  of  Miriam’s  life.  As  finally 
sunken  in  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  this  rock,  according  to  tradition, 
“can  still  be  seen  from  certain  points  of  view,  as  before  Jeshimon, 
or  as  one  is  ascending  to  the  peak  of  Carmel,  or  from  the  middle 
door  of  the  old  synagogue  of  Serugnin.”  And  thence  the  Foun- 
tain of  Miriam  discharges  itself  at  “ the  end  of  the  Sabbath  ” and 
“ mingles  itself  with  all  fountains.”  And  wherever  those  waters 
flow  they  carry  healing;  for  “if  it  should  happen  that  at  that 
moment  of  time  any  Jewess  should  draw  some  of  that  water,  it 
would  certainly  be  most  efficient  to  the  working  of  all  cure;”  for 
“ whoever  drinks  from  such  a fountain  as  that  is  healed,  even 
though  his  whole  body  were  covered  with  the  most  loathsome 
disease.”2  It  would  even  seem  as  if  the  multitude  of  sick,  blind, 
halt,  withered  who  waited  for  the  troubling  of  the  waters  at  Beth- 


to  Rephidim  when  it  had  accomplished  its  purpose  for  the  Israelites ; and  a rock  which 
is  claimed  to  he  this  one  is  shown  near  Mount  Sinai  to-day,  having  traces  of  twelve  fis- 
sures from  which  the~water  flowed.  It  is  frequently  pictured  in  the  reports  of 
travelers,  as,  for  example,  in  Moncony’s  Reisen  (a.  d.  1696) ; in  Shaw’s  Travels  (a.  d. 
1738) ; in  Pococke’s  Description  of  the  East  (a.  d.  1743) ; in  Laborde’s  Voyage  (a.  d. 
1830) ; in  Newnham’s  Illustrations  of  the  Exodus  (a.  d.  1830) ; and  in  many  other 
works.  Moreover  it  is  often  referred  to"by  Christian  travelers  as  a veritable  sacred 
relic. 


1 Num.  20:  1,  2. 
12 


2 Buxtorf’s  Syn.  Jud.,  as  above. 


178 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


esda1  were  watching  for  the  inflow  from  the  Fountain  of  Miriam. 
It  is  thought  that  Paul  had  this  well-known  rabbinical  tradition 
in  mind,  when  he  said  of  the  Israelites  in  their  journeyings : 
“ They  drank  of  a spiritual  Rock  which  followed  them : and  the 
Rock  was  Christ.” 2 The  tradition  according  to  the  rabbins  was, 
that  a natural  rock  followed  them  to  supply  their  bodily  thirst. 
The  truth  according  to  Paul  was,  that  a spiritual  Rock  followed 
them,  to  supply  their  soul  thirst. 

In  view  of  the  rabbinical  legends  attached  to  the  Rock  which 
supplied  the  Israelites  at  Kadesh,  it  would  certainly  not  be  strange 
to  find  that  Rock — and  by  metonomy  the  Place  of  that  Rock — 
referred  to  in  the  rabbinical  writings  by  a term  which,  in  its  use 
elsewhere,  seems  to  mean  “ smitten  rock,”  a layer  rock,”  “ pierced 
rock,”  “ stone  heaps,”  and  “ stone  dwellings.”  Nor  again  would  it 
be  strange  if  that  term  thus  applied  should  cause  more  or  less  con- 
fusion in  its  possible  application  to  other  places  of  rock,  or  of  rock- 
dwellings. 


4.  IN  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  NAME  LISTS. 

In  turning  from  the  Jewish  to  the  early  Christian  writings,  for 
help  in  the  locating  of  Kadesh-barnea,  we  are  practically  limited 
to  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  The  first  named  of  these  writers  pre- 
pared, early  in  the  fourth  century,  his  “ Onomasticon,”  a Name 
List  of  SaCred  Places.  This  being  issued  in  Greek,  it  was  trans- 
lated into  Latin,  by  Jerome,  under  the  title  of  “De  Locis  He- 
braicis,”  who  also  made  some  additions  to  it,  before  the  close  of 
the  same  century. 

While  examining  this  source  of  information,  it  is  important  to 
bear  in  mind  the  real  value  and  the  evident  limitations  of  both 

1 John  5:  2-7.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Revised  Text  leaves  out  the  ref- 
erence to  an  angel's  troubling  of  the  water. 

21  Cor.  10:  4. 


IN  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  NAME  LISTS. 


179 


these  writers  in  the  fields  covered  by  them.  Concerning  places  of 
which  they  had  personal  knowledge,  the  facts  they  give  are  of 
great  value;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  other  places  concerning 
which  the  identification  was  not  in  doubt  in  their  day.  But 
beyond  the  range  of  their  personal  knowledge,  they  had  few  helps 
to  an  understanding  of  geography;  and  their  work  shows  their 
liability  to  be  misled  or  confused  by  a similarity  of  names  in 
different  sites,  and  by  vague  impressions  or  hasty  conclusions. 
As  Von  Raumer1  says  of  their  combined  geographical  writing: 
“ Their  work  is  of  double  worth,  since  both  authors  lived  in  Pales- 
tine; but  of  course  they  are  of  slighter  authority  when  they  speak 
of  ancient  places  which  neither  of  the  two  saw.”  And  as  Conder2 
adds : “ It  seems  plain  that  they  were  far  more  hasty  than  modern 
scholars  would  be  in  fixing  upon  a site  of  similar  name  without 
reference  to  other  requisites;”  hence  “the  instances  of  incorrect 
identification  are  very  numerous.” 

In  the  day  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  Kadesh-barnea  had  long 
passed  out  of  prominence  as  a place  of  habitation,  although  its 
name  was  so  closely  linked  with  the  history  of  Palestine;  and  its 
site — as  indicated  in  our  researches  thus  far — would  hardly  have 
been  in  the  line  of  travel  to  or  from  the  Holy  Land.  Petra,  on 
the  contrary — the  Petra  of  Edom — was  still  a centre  of  political 
and  commercial  importance;  and  its  site  must  have  been  well 
known.  We  have  no  reason,  however,  for  supposing  that  either 
Eusebius  or  Jerome  had  been  at  either  Kadesh-barnea  or  Petra. 
Indeed  Robinson3  says,  that  in  view  of  their  citing  Josephus  as 
authority  for  the  interchanged  names  of  “Petra,”  “Recem,”  and 
“Arcem : ” “ it  would  seem  that  they  in  no  case  speak  from  their 
own  knowledge,”  of  these  places.  It  is,  therefore,  quite  reason- 


1 Palastina,  p.  4. 

2 “Early  Christian  Topography,”  in  Surv.  of  West,  Pal.,  “Special  Papers,”  p.  249/ 

*Bib.  Res.,  II.,  521. 


180 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


able  to  suppose,  that  both  Eusebius  and  Jerome  had  vague  ideas 
of  the  precise  location  of  Kadesh-barnea ; and  that  the  similarity 
of  its  rabbinical  name  “ Reqam  ” with  the  alternative  names  of 
Petra,  would  confuse  their  ideas  of  the  relations  of  these  two 
places ; and  of  other  sites  linked  with  them,  as  already  shown 
in  the  case  of  Mount  Hor. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  both  Eusebius  and  Jerome  seem  to  have 
taken  Kadesh  and  Radesh-barnea  to  be  alternative  names  of  the 
Wilderness  of  Kadesh ; and  that  wilderness  to  be  an  extensive 
stretch  of  desert  south  of  Palestine  ; all  the  way  along  from  the 
Wilderness  of  Shur  on  the  borders  of  Egypt,  to  the  easternmost 
limit  of  the  Wilderness  of  Paran — where  lay  Petra  or  Reqam, 
“ the  east  of  the  world.”  1 Indeed,  in  one  place,  they  specifically 
declare  this  to  be  their  view  of  the  case ; and,  again,  several  of 
their  mentions  of  Kadesh  are  conformed  to  it.  Speaking  of 
Gerar,2  they  say  : “ Scripture  mentions  that  it  was  between  Kadesh 
and  Shur ; that  is,  between  two  wildernesses,  of  which  one  is 
joined  to  Egypt — into  which  [Shur]  the  people  came  after  crossing 
the  Red  Sea ; but  the  other,  Kadesh,  extends  even  to  the  desert  of 
the  Saracens” — of  Arabia  Felix.3  Eusebius  describes  Kadesh- 
barnea  as  “ the  desert  stretching  to  Petra,  a city  of  Palestine;”4 
while  Jerome  adds  that  Kadesh-barnea  is  “ in  the  desert  which  is 
joined  to  [or  which  actually  stretches  on  until  it  touches]  the  city 
of  Petra.”5  Again,  in  a mention  of  “ Arad,”6  Eusebius  says  it  is 
“ situated  near  the  desert  called  Kadesh;”  and  Jerome7  says, 
“near  the  desert  of  Kadesh.”  Moreover,  both  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  locate  the  Well  of  Judgment8  [En-mishpat]  in  Gerar,  in 
the  western  part  of  the  desert. 

1 See  page  168  f,  supra.  2 Onomasticon.,  s.  v. 

3 The  desert  east  of  the  ’Arabah.  See  Forster’s  Geog.  of  Arabia,  II.,  7-32. 

4 Onomasticon , s.  v.,  “ Kaddes.”  5 De  Loc.  Heb.,  s.  v.,  “ Cades.” 

6 Onomasticon , s.  v.,  “ Arama.”  7 De  Loc.  Heb.,  s.  v.,  " Arad.” 

8 Ibid.,  s.  v.,  “ Puteus  judicii .”  Onomasticon , s.  v.,  $p£ap  Kpiaeug. 


IN  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  NAME  LISTS. 


181 


In  another  work,1  Jerome  speaks  of  the  monk  Hilarion  as 
“ going  to  the  desert  Kadesh  ” by  way  of  Elusa — a route  which 
would  be  taken  to  day  by  a traveler  from  Palestine  toward  the 
Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  or  toward  the  desert  south  of  those 
mountains.  In  no  case,  however,  is  Kadesh  identified  with  Petra, 
either  by  statement  or  by  implication,  in  the  writings  of  Eusebius 
and  Jerome ; any  more  than  in  the  writings  of  Josephus  and  the 
rabbins. 


From  all  these  facts  it  would  seem,  that  while  there  are  no  con- 
clusive indications  of  the  precise  location  of  Kadesh-barnea  in  the 
Egyptian  records,  in  the  Apocrypha,  in  the  rabbinical  writings,  or 
in  the  early  Christian  name-lists,  there  is  nothing  in  those  extra- 
biblical  sources  of  information  which  conflicts  v ith  the  indications 
already  found  in  the  Bible  text ; while  there  is  more  or  less  in 
confirmation  of  those  indications. 


Vita  Hilarionis. 


K ADE  S H-BAKKEA. 


LATER  ATTEMPTS  AT  ITS  IDENTIFYING. 


KADE  S H-BAENEA. 


1.  WHY  IT  DROPPED  FROM  NOTICE. 

Notwithstanding  the  importance  and  early  prominence  of 
Kadesh-barnea  as  a boundary  line  landmark,  and  as  a point  of 
strategic  value  on  the  border  of  the  Holy  Land,  it  seems  to  have 
dropped  out  from  the  records  of  travel  and  of  study  during  a 
period  of  six  to  eight  centuries  after  the  days  of  Eusebius  and 
Jerome ; and  the  reasons  for  this  fact  it  is  not  difficult  to  surmise. 

Because  Kadesh-barnea  was  a secluded  stronghold,  off  from  the 
main  routes  of  travel  while  yet  it  was  near  to  them,  it  would  natu- 
rally be  passed  by  without  notice,  when  there  was  no  special 
occasion  for  turning  aside  to  it.  It  was  not  a station  on  any  of 
the  great  Homan  roads  across  the  desert,  or  into  and  through 
Palestine,  to  find  a place  on  all  the  prominent  route- maps,  such  as 
the  Antonine  Itinerary  and  the  Peutinger  Tables.  It  was  not  in 
the  ordinary  routes  of  pilgrimage  to  or  from  Jerusalem  or  Mount 
Sinai,  to  have  mention  in  the  devout  itineraries,  from  Bishop 
ArculPs  to  that  of  Sir  John  Maundeville.1 

Nor  was  it  in  the  line  of  the  customary  approaches  to  Palestine 
from  the  West,  during  the  varying  conflicts  for  the  possession  of 
that  land,  as  recorded  in  the  crusading  chronicles  of  the  middle 
ages.  No  Christian  army  followed  in  the  track  of  Kedor-la’omer 


1 See  Reissbuch  des  Heiligen  Lands  ; also,  Wright’s  Early  Travels  in  Palestine. 

185 


186 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


or  of  Moses,  in  an  attempted  entry  into  the  Holy  Land  from  the 
southward  ; and,  therefore,  none  needed  to  seek  a stopping-place 
at  the  border  stronghold  which  those  chieftains  recognized  as  an 
objective  point  in  such  a movement. 

Meantime,  there  were  no  geographical  studies  of  that  region,  in 
either  Jewish  or  Christian  circles,  which  gave  fresh  light  to  any 
out-of-the-way  location,  however  important  it  might  be  in  its  rela- 
tions to  the  Bible  narrative.  Hence  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
that  Kadesh-barnea  seemed  forgotten. 


2.  A GLEAM  DURING  THE  CRUSADES. 

In  a single  instance  there  is  a mention  of  Kadesh-barnea,  in  the 
crusading  chronicles  of  William  of  Tyre;1  and  naturally  this 
mention  is  in  connection  with  a movement  Egyptward. 

It  was  between  the  second  and  third  crusades,2  under  the  reign 
of  Amalric  I.  (or  Amaury  I.),  the  brother  and  successor  of  Bald- 
win III.,  as  king  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  1167.  A state  of  things 
which  at  that  time,  was,  in  a sense,  advantageous  to  the  Christians, 
grew  out  of  the  discords  and  conflicts  among  the  Muhammadans 
of  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Asiatic  Turkey.  The  rival  khaleefehs  of 
Cairo  and  Baghdad  were  in  bitter  hostility  to  each  other;  and 
both  the  sultan  of  Damascus  and  the  king  of  Jerusalem  endeav- 
ored from  time  to  time  to  avail  themselves  of  this  hostility  for 
personal  ends.3 

After  the  Christian  and  the  Syrian  armies  had  successively 
invaded  Egypt  and  then  withdrawn  from  it,  the  sultan  of  Damas- 

1  See  his  “Historia,”  in 'Gesta  Dei  per  Francos , at  p.  962  /. 

2  As  in  all  such  matters,  there  is  a difference  in  the  dividing  line  recognized  by 
different  authorities.  Mill  (Hist,  of  Crusades , chap.  X.),  counts  this  period  between 
the  second  and  third  crusades;  so  does  Cox  ( Encyc . Brit.,  ninth  ed.,  Art.  “Cru- 
sades”); but  Michaud  (Hist,  of  Crusades,  Bk.  VII.),  includes  it  in  the  third 
crusade. 

3  Various  authorities  (as  above)  go  to  show  these  facts. 


A GLEAM  DURING  THE  CRUSADES. 


187 


cus  made  a league  with  the  khaleefeh  of  Baghdad  for  the  subju- 
gation of  Egypt;  in  order  that  the  sultan  might  govern  it  politi- 
cally, and  that  the  eastern  khaleefeh  might  secure  undisputed 
religious  sway  in  the  Muhammadan  world.  To  this  end  a vast 
army  was  raised,  and  began  its  move  Egyptward.  Then  it  was 
that  Egypt  invoked  the  aid  of  the  Christians,  promising  to  pay  a 
heavy  tribute  in  return  for  the  protection  asked  for. 

The  kino;  of  Jerusalem  agreed  to  render  the  desired  assistance. 
At  his  summons,  there  was  an  assembly  at  Nablus  of  all  the  dig- 
nitaries of  church  and  state  in  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem;  and 
arrangements  were  speeded  for  the  raising  of  men  and  money 
without  stint,  for  the  new  campaign.  Meantime  the  report  came 
to  king  Amalric  that  the  Syrian  leader  with  his  allied  army  u had 
taken  his  way  through  the  desert  by  which  the  people  of  Israel 
came  to  the  Land  of  Promise ;”*  that,  in  fact,  he  had  crossed  the 
Desert  et-Teeh  from  its  eastern  to  its  western  borders,  entering  it, 
doubtless,  by  the  way  which  Kedor-la’omer  had  taken  into  the 
Wilderness  of  Paran.  Then  king  Amalric,  gathering  all  the  sol- 
diers at  his  disposal,  hastened  down  to  intercept  him,  going  “ even 
to  Kadesh-barnea  which  is  in  the  desert;”  but  “not  finding  him 
he  quickly  returned,”  says  the  chronicler.1 2 

From  further  reports  of  the  movements  of  Amalric,  in  connec- 
tion with  this  invasion  of  Egypt  from  the  East,3  it  is  evident  that 
his  own  course  was  Egyptward,  and  that  he  went  by  way  of  Gaza, 
from  the  centre  of  his  kingdom.  This  mention  of  Kadesh-barnea 
would  seem,  therefore,  to  show  that  during  the  crusading  period, 
as  in  the  days  of  Jerome  and  Eusebius,  that  region  was  counted 
the  desert,  or  a portion  of  the  desert,  that  stretched  along  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  Holy  Land  from  near  its  western  limits. 

Another  remarkable  illustration  of  the  typical  character  of 

1 Gesta  Dei,  p.  963.  2 Ibid. 

3 See  Mill’s  Hist,  of  Crusades,  chap.  X.,  p.  131  Michaud’s  Hist,  of  Crusades, 

Yol.  III.,  p.  388  /. 


188 


KA  DESH-BABNEA. 


Egypt,  with  its  temptations  and  its  bondage,  in  contrast  with 
Palestine,  with  its  conflicts  and  its  possibilities  of  rest  by  faith,  is 
furnished  in  the  story  of  this  Egyptward  movement  of  the  new 
king  of  Jerusalem.  When  Amalric  had  seen  the  abounding  ma- 
terial treasures  of  Egypt,  he  coveted  them  as  more  attractive  than 
his  straitened  and  desolate  domain  in  Palestine,  and  he  determined 
to  possess  that  land.  And  his  purpose  and  endeavors  in  this  di- 
rection became  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  Christian  supremacy  in 
Palestine.  It  was  in  connection  with  this  diversion  of  the  strength 
of  the  crusaders’  power,  that  ground  was  lost  on  their  northern 
borders,  and  that  Saladin  (Salah-ed-Deen),  the  new  leader  of  the 
Saracens,  was  brought  into  preeminence  before  his  own  people, 
and  became  a power  for  the  crushing  out,  for  the  time  at  least,  of 
the  Christian  sway  in  the  Holy  Land.1  It  would  have  been  bet- 
ter for  Amalric  to  have  sojourned,  like  Abraham,  between  Kadesh 
and  Shur,  rather  than  to  have  passed  hurriedly  through  Arabia,  in 
the  hope  of  finding  a more  attractive  home  in  the  Land  of  Bond- 
age than  was  available  to  him  in  the  ancient  Land  of  Promise. 


3.  NATURAL  MISTAKES  OF  MEDIAEVAL  WRITERS. 

In  the  lack  of  any  fresh  discoveries  concerning  the  site  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  ambiguous  and 
uncertain  references  to  it  in  the  name-lists  of  the  early  Christian 
writers,  together  with  the  duplicating  of  its  synonym  Reqam  in 
the  early  rabbinical  writings,  continued  for  centuries  to  cause  con- 
fusion in  both  Christian  and  Jewish  attempts  at  its  locating.  Nor 
can  it  be  doubted  that  every  attempt  to  reconcile  these  conflicting 
indications  with  the  clearer  disclosures  of  the  Bible  text,  would 
inevitably  increase  the  confusion. 

Those  who  followed  the  Onomasticon,  would  be  inclined  to  look 


1See  Michaud’s  Hist,  of  Crusades;  Yol.  III.,  pp.  392-406. 


NATURAL  MISTAKES  OF  MEDIAEVAL  WRITERS.  189 


for  Kadesh-barnea  as  a wilderness-region  south  of  Palestine, 
stretching  across  the  desert  even  to  Petra  on  the  east  of  the  ?Ara- 
bah.  Those  who  turned  to  the  Bible  for  guidance  would  be  sure 
that  Kadesh-barnea  lay  far  to  the  westward  of  the  ’Arabah,  and 
on  the  southern  border  of  the  Holy  Land  proper.  Those  who 
would  reconcile  the  Bible  and  the  Onomasticon,  or  who  had  been 
misled  by  the  talmudic  references  to  the  two  Reqams,  must  seek 
for  two  Kadeshes,  or  one  Kadesh  and  one  Kadesh-barnea ; the  one 
at  the  east  of  the  southern  desert;  the  other  westward.  And  just 
this  variety  of  opinions  is  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  commen- 
tators, geographers,  and  travelers,  for  a series  of  centuries. 

The  first  explicit  mention  of  a Kadesh  as  distinct  from  Kadesh- 
barnea,  so  far  as  I know,  is  by  “ Rashi,” 1 in  the  latter  part  of  the 
eleventh  century.  He  simply  says  : “ There  were  two  towns  ; the 
one  was  called  Kadesh,  and  the  other  Kadesh-barnea.” 2 He  gives 
no  reason  for  this  opinion ; nor  does  he  seem  to  have  any  special 
familiarity  with  the  geography  of  the  Holy  Land  from  personal 
knowledge.  He  was  apparently  misled  by  the  double  Reqam  in 
the  Talmud — the  Rock-Kadesh  and  the  Rock- Petra ; and  again 
his  error  at  this  point  would  be  sure  to  mislead  Jewish  writers 
after  him,  as  Eusebius  and  Jerome  were  the  means  of  misleading 
Christian  scholars. 

It  is  said  that  Maimonides,  who  closely  followed  Rashi  in  time, 
“ constructed  a map  of  the  frontiers  of  Palestine.”3  Such  a map 
I do  not  find  reproduced  or  referred  to  in  any  edition  of  his  works 
which  I have  examined ; but  there  is  a rabbinical  map,  or  rude 
plot,  of  the  Holy  Land  boundaries,  to  be  found  in  many  old 
works,4  and  possibly  this  dates  from  his  time.  It  simply  notes 
the  place  of  Kadesh-barnea,  as  west  of  the  lower  end  of  the  Salt 

1 See  page  151,  supra.  2 Rashi,  *al  ha-Torah , at  Num.  32 : 8. 

3 See  Zunz  on  “ Geographical  Literature  of  the  Jews,”  in  Asher’s  Benjamin  of 

Tudela,  p.  254. 

4 See,  e.  g.  Van  Hamelsveld’s  Bib.  Geog.  Vol.  I.,  p.  138. 


190 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Sea;  but  in  such  a way  as  to  throw  no  light  on  its  precise 
location. 

The  earliest  mention  of  Kadesh-barnea  which  I find  in  any 
Christian  writer  after  Jerome,  is  in  the  Latin  work  of  the  Domini- 
can Brocardus,  entitled  “ Locorum  Terrse  Sanctse  Descriptio,” 
which  was  probably  written  near  the  close  of  the  thirteenth 
century.1 

Brocardus  had  been  in  the  Holy  Land  ; but  apparently  not  in 
the  desert.  His  references  to  Kadesh-barnea  are  vague  and  inex- 
act ; and  are  evidently  controlled  by  the  idea  of  Eusebius  and 
Jerome,  that  it  was  a wilderness-region  stretching  westward  along 
the  desert  border  of  Palestine,  from  the  vicinity  of  Petra  ; or  from 
Kerek,  at  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  was  then  supposed  to 
be  the  site  of  ancient  Petra.  His  statements  throw  no  new  light 
on  the  subject ; they  rather  go  to  show  the  general  lack  of  knowl- 
edge on  this  point  in  his  day. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  map  of  the  Holy  Land  with  any  attempt  at 
accurate  locations,  was  that  of  Marino  Sanuto,  an  Italian  geogra- 
pher2 and  a historian  of  the  crusades,3  who  had  visited  Palestine. 
His  map  was  drawn  early  in  the  fourteenth  century ; and  it  was 
long  made  the  basis  of  the  maps  of  that  region.  As  it  extended 
only  to  the  southern  tongue  of  the  Dead  Sea,  it  did  not  include 
the  region  of  Kadesh-barnea;  but  a note  which  appears  at  the 
lower  margin  of  the  map,  as  reproduced  in  an  edition  of  “ Gesta 
Dei  per  Francos/7  under  date  of  1611,  refers  to  the  “land  of 
Amalek”  as  southward  of  the  lower  line  of  the  map,  and  as  “ex- 

1 “All  editors  refer  this  tract  to  the  thirteenth  century;  some  to  the  early  part, 
and  some  to  the  close ; but  the  weight  of  authority  seems,  to  lean  towards  the  latter 
part,  or  about  A.  D.  1280”  (Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.  II.,  539). 

2 He  also  prepared  “a  map  of  the  world  representing  the  Mediterranean  and 
Atlantic  coasts  as  far  as  Flanders,  probably  drawn  between  1312  and  1321  ” ( Encyc . 
Brit.,  Ninth  ed.,  Art.  “ Map  ”). 

3  His  “ Secreta  Fidelium  ” is  in  Gesta  Dei. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 


191 


tending  to  the  tongue  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  Kadesh-barnea.”  This 
note,  which  is  in  substance  taken  from  Sanuto’s  “ Secreta  Fide- 
lium,”  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  counted  Kadesh-barnea  as  a 
westward  landmark,  oyer  against  the  Dead  Sea  as  an  eastern  one. 


4.  BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 

There  was  no  lack  of  pilgrimages  to  the  Holy  Land  during  all 
the  Middle  Ages ; nor  was  Mount  Sinai  then  overlooked  as  a place 
of  Christian  pilgrimage.  But  the  pilgrims  generally  were  intent 
rather  on  showing  their  veneration  for  sites  which  were  tradition- 
ally identified,  than  on  discovering  anew  any  sacred  place  which 
had  long  been  lost  sight  of.  It  was  not  until  near  the  close  of  the 
fifteenth  century  that  a spirit  of  fresh  investigation  seemed  to  be 
awakened  in  travelers  there  as  elsewhere ; then,  however,  the  in- 
vention of  printing  promoted  the  quickening  of  that  spirit  to  a 
degree  quite  unexampled  before. 

First  among  Christian  travelers  to  suggest  that  they  had  visited 
the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  were  Breydenbach  and  Fabri ; and  their 
suggestion  has  chief  value  in  the  fact  that  it  was  a suggestion  in 
this  direction,  however  little  it  had  to  rest  on. 

It  was  in  1483-84  that  Dean  Breydenbach  of  Mayence,  and 
Friar  Fabri  of  Ulm,  two  Roman  ecclesiastics,  journeyed  together 
from  Jerusalem  to  Mount  Sinai  by  way  of  Gaza  and  Beersheba. 
Among  their  companions  were  the  Count  of  Solms  and  Freiherr 
Hans  Werli  von  Zimber.  Breydenbach  and  Fabri  wrote  each  his 
own  report  of  the  journey  ;l  and  each  wrote  the  story  over  again 
for  the  benefit  of  a titled  companion.2 3  These  four  reports  show 
many  discrepancies  in  the  order  and  distances  of  places  visited  ;s 

1  Breydenbach’s  Itin.  Hierosolym. ; Fabri’s  Evagatorium. 

2 Faber’s  Beschreibung , for  Hans  Werli ; Breydenbach’s  Beschreibung , for  the 
Count  of  Solms. 

3 For  example,  Breydenbach  says,  that  on  leaving  Gaza  they  stopped  just  outside 


192 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


such  discrepancies,  however,  as  are  not  to  be  wondered  at  in  itine- 
raries of  that  period,  and  of  that  region.  Of  the  two  ecclesiastics, 
Fabri  is  commonly  the  more  accurate  ; yet  Breydenbach  has  had  the 
larger  popularity,  perhaps  from  his  freer  plagiarism  from  Brocar- 
dus’s  work  already  mentioned.  Both  writers  have  more  promi- 
nence through  their  place  at  the  dawning  of  a better  day  on  the 
field  of  their  research,  than  any  work  performed  by  them  would 
merit  on  its  own  account. 

At  some  distance  below  Gaza  these  travelers  came  to  a place 
which  they  thought  might  be  identified  with  Kadesh-barnea. 
Fabri  says  of  it : 1 “We  came  into  a land  undulating  and  unequal 
with  hills,  but  barren.  The  place  also  is  called  in  Arabic,  Cha- 
watha.2  And  in  it  we  found  many  signs  and  marks  that  there 
were  once  human  habitations ; for,  above  us,  we  found  twelve 
great  walled  ancient  cisterns,  round  about  which  were  lying  many 
broken  pieces  of  pottery,  and  ashes  . . . According  to  the  position 
of  that  place,  I think  that  it  is  the  region  of  Kadesh  barnea.” 
Breydenbach  goes  a little  farther,  in  his  inclination  to  identify  this 

the  city  for  the  first  night ; and  the  second  night  they  stopped  at  Lebhem,  “ one  mile 
from  Gaza.”  Fabri  says,  that  the  day  following  their  night  at  Gazmaha,  just  outside 
of  Gaza,  they  journeyed  “eight  hours”  in  the  direction  of  Beersheba,  and  then 
stopped  at  Lebhem.  He  mentions  that  on  this  route,  at  one  German  mile  (nearly 
five  English  miles)  from  Gazmaha,  their  Arab  shaykh  left  them,  on  his  return  to 
Jerusalem.  The  place  of  this  incident  may  have  misled  Breydenbach  in  the  writing 
up  of  his  notes.  Fabri  in  another  place  says  that  they  reached  Beersheba  some 
hours  before  reaching  Lebhem.  Such  discrepancies  as  these  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  while  these  travelers  refer  to  veritable  places  visited  by  them,  they  are  confused 
as  to  the  distances  and  order  of  places,  one  from  another,  as  might  easily  be  the  case 
in  writing  up  a record  from  note-jottings.  (Comp.  Evagatorium,  II.,  409,  410,  and 
Reissbuch,  p.  292). 

Robinson  (Bib.  Res.,  II.,  541)  says:  “On  comparing  the  two  accounts,  I find  that 
of  Fabri  to  be  more  full  and  accurate ; and  wherever  there  is  a discrepancy  (as  at 
Hebron)  the  latter  is  to  be  preferred.” 

1 Evagatorium.  II.  411  f. 

2 It  is  more  probable  that  the  Arabic  name  was  Hawwddeh  ( ) an  irregular 

plural  of  hawd  ( ),  meaning  “ Cisterns  ” — or  Place  of  Cisterns. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 


193 


as  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea.  He  says  of  it : 1 “ We  came  into  a 
place  which  in  the  Arabic  tongue  is  called,  Cawatha ; but  in  the 
Latin,  Cades.” 

Just  where  this  place  was  is  not  clear  from  the  several  narra- 
tives. From  one  record,  it  would  seem  to  be  near  Gaza ; from 
another,  to  be  at  two  or  three  days  distance  southeasterly ; and 
from  yet  another,  to  be  below  Beersheba.2  It  is  thought  by  some 
that  Tucher,  a traveler  from  Bethlehem  to  Gaza,  in  1479,  had  re- 
ferred to  this  region  under  the  name  “ Mackati ; ”3  although  this  is 
by  no  means  sure.  On  the  strength  of  these  notes,  Zimmermann, 
in  his  large  map  of  Syria  and  Palestine,4  which  accompanied 
Ritter’s  great  work,  laid  down  “ Chawata,”  with  several  alternative 
names,  at  a point  a little  southeast  of  Gaza ; and  the  new  map  of 
the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund 5 gives  “ Khan  el-Hawadi  ” 6 
at  about  the  same  point.  The  whole  thing  is,  however,  of  little 
importance  except  as  showing  the  fact,  that  in  this  earliest  mention 
of  the  possible  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  in  the  record  of  modern  tra- 
vel, the  idea  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  that  the  region  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  extended  westward  to  near  the  Mediterranean  border  of 
Palestine,  prevailed  in  the  minds  of  the  more  intelligent  Christian 
pilgrims,  as  it  had  before  prevailed  in  the  minds  of  the  crusaders. 

With  the  discovery  of  printing,  there  came  also  a new  applica- 
tion of  copper  engraving,  and  wood-cutting,  for  the  multiplication 
of  illustrations  in  printed  works;  and  this  facilitated  an  increase 
of  maps  to  accompany  geographies  and  Bibles.  In  the  second  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century  a rude  map  illustrating  the  exodus  and 
wanderings  of  the  Israelites  was  reproduced,  with  variations,  in 
popular  editions  of  the  Bible  in  Latin,  French,  and  Eng- 

1 Itinerarium,  (Spires  edition ; pages  not  numbered.) 

2 See  note  at  page  191,  supra.  3 Tucher’s  “ Beschreibung  ” (in  Reissbuch,  p.  678). 

4 Karte  von  Syrien  u.  Palastina.  5 Map  of  West.  Pal.,  Sheet  xix. 

6 “ The  word  means  hind  legs,”  says  “ Name  Lists  ” ( Surv . of  West.  Pal.),  p.  361. 

Possibly  Hawwadeh  was  mistaken  for  this  word  by  the  explorers.  See  note  at  p.  192. 

13 


194 


KA  DESH-BARNEA . 


lish.1  In  this  map,  Kadesh-barnea  was  represented  as  on  the 
southern  border  of  Canaan,  at  a point  a little  more  than  half 
way  across  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean;  just  where  a 
study  of  the  Bible  references  to  it,  unconfused  by  the  guesses  of 
Eusebius  and  Jerome,  would  prompt  to  its  locating.2 

But  Bible-maps,  like  Bible-commentaries,  were  not  all  con- 
formed to  one  pattern  then,  any  more  than  they  are  now.  In  at 
least  one  Latin  Bible,  as  early  as  1483, 3 the  maps,  which  were 
exceptionally  well  wrought,  gave  two  sites  for  Kadesh;  one,  as 
“ Cades-barne,”  southerly  from  Hebron ; another  as  “ Cades  En- 
mishpat,”  farther  eastward.  Of  course  the  Bible  maps  reflected 
the  views  of  geographers  for  the  time  being. 

With  the  rise  of  printing  and  engraving,  there  was  a revival  of 
interest  in  old-time  maps  and  geographies,  as  well  as  a multiplica- 
tion of  new  ones.  Various  editions  of  Ptolemy’s  Geography  were 
re-issued,  with  accompanying  maps.4  No  maps  drawn  by  Ptolemy 
had  been  preserved.5  The  earliest  known  maps  plotted  from  his 
data  are  supposed  to  have  been  made  in  the  fifth  century  of  our 
era.  The  new  maps  issued  with  the  successive  printed  editions  of 
his  work,  while  conformed  to  his  data,  naturally  had  more  or  less 
additions  to  them  in  accordance  with  the  later  advances  in  geo- 
graphical discovery.  For  example,  in  his  geography  he  makes  no 
mention  of  Kadesh-barnea;  but  in  an  edition  of  it  printed  at 
Borne,  in  1508,  one  of  the  maps  has  a similar  note  to  that  on 


1 See,  e.  g. : Francis  Stephens’s  French  Bible,  A.  d.,  1567 ; Rovillius’s  French  Bi- 
ble, A.  D.,  1569 ; Santander’s  Latin  Bible,  A.  D.,  1574 ; Selfisch  and  Bechtold’s  Latin 
Bible,  a.  d.,  1591 ; Barker’s  English  Bible,  A.  d.,  1599. 

2 I am  inclined  to  think  that  Munster  was  the  author  of  this  map ; as  will  be  seen 
farther  on.  A biblical  and  geographical  conclusion  of  his,  is  worthy  of  respect. 

3  Christopher  Plantin’s  Latin  Bible,  Antwerp. 

4  See  Ruge’s  article  “ Map,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  edition. 

5  Ruge  (as  above)  says : “No  maps  appear  to  have  been  drawn  by  Ptolemy  him- 
self.” But  Ptolemy  ( Geog .,  Bk.  I.,  chaps.  21-24,)  speaks  of  his  methods  of  preparing 
his  maps,  in  a manner  to  justify  the  belief  that  he  did  prepare  them. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 


195 


Marino  Sanuto’s,  concerning  the  stretch  of  the  region  of  the  Amale- 
kites  from  the  tongue  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  Kadesh-barnea,  or  “ Cades- 
Bersabee”  as  it  is  here  called.  The  maps  in  other  editions  of  Ptole- 
my which  I have  examined1  contain  no  mention  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

The  two  centuries  following  the  invention  of  printing  were 
marked  by  a revival  of  geographical  study.  Some  of  the  maps  of 
that  period  are  of  a style  and  finish  to  bear  comparison  with  good 
work  of  the  present  day.  And  the  basis  of  much  of  our  geographi- 
cal knowledge  was  then  laid  by  such  masters  in  their  line  as  Mer- 
cator and  Munster  and  Ortelius,  and  others  less  known  but  not 
less  worthy  of  praise.  The  Holy  Land  came  in  for  its  full  share 
of  study  by  the  foremost  geographers  of  the  time ; but,  of  course, 
they  had  no  new  data  for  the  settlement  of  disputed  sites,  and  they 
naturally  gave  large  weight  to  the  opinions  of  Bible  students  of 
their  day  and  earlier,  in  such  a matter.  Their  locations  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  are,  therefore,  valuable  only  as  showing  the  current  opinions 
of  their  time  concerning  it. 

Jacob  Ziegler,  a Bavarian  scholar,  published  a work  on  the 
geography  of  Palestine,  with  accompanying  maps,  in  1532.2  These 
maps  show  a close  study  of  the  Bible  text,  and  they  locate' 
“ Akrabbim  ” at  the  westward  of  the  lower  tongue  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  and  u Chades  Barneah  ” southwesterly  of  that  tongue,  mid- 
way toward  the  Mediterranean  shore ; just  where  the  latest  con- 
clusions of  scholars  would  find  it.  Gerard  Mercator’s  first  geo- 
graphical work  was  a map  of  the  Holy  Land,  published  in  1537. 
This,  by  itself,  I have  not  seen ; but  Mercator’s  later  maps  of 
Palestine,  so  far  as  I have  seen,3  do  not  note  Kadesh-barnea. 

1  Including  Strasburg,  A.  D.  1525 ; Basle,  A.  D.  1545 ; and  later  ones. 

2 Published,  like  many  a book  of  that  day.  without  a title.  There  is  nothing  in 
this  line  beyond;  “ Jacobi  Ziegleri , Argentorati,  apud  Petrum  Opilionem, 
31 D.  XXXII.” 

3 Including  his  Atlas  Minor,  Amsterdam,  A.  D.  1614,  and  his  larger  Atlas,  Amster- 
dam, a.  D.  1633. 


196 


KADESU-BAENEA. 


Munster’s  Cosmography  of  15501  gives  a map  of  Palestine  and 
of  the  region  below  it,  on  which  is  laid  down  the  line  of  Israel’s 
exodus  and  wanderings  much  in  the  form  which  soon  after  ap- 
peared in  popular  editions  of  the  Bible,  as  already  noted,2  and 
which  indeed  may  have  been  the  foundation  of  that.  The  name 
of  Kadesh-barnea  does  not  appear  on  this  edition  of  the  map,  but 
this  seems  to  be  an  accidental  omission ; for  the  turning-point  of 
the  Israelites  from  the  southern  border  of  Canaan  is  made,  without 
a note,  just  at  the  place  where  Kadesh-barnea  is  noted  in  the 
Bible-maps,  midway  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean ; and  in  a subsequent  edition  of  his  Cosmography,3  Munster 
locates  Kadesh-barnea,  Kadesh,  and  Zin,  together  at  that  point, 
southerly  from  Hebron.  This  would  seem  to  show  his  under- 
standing of  Kadesh-barnea  as  a “city”  in  the  Wilderness  of 
Kadesh,  and  both  in  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  according  to  the 
Bible  text. 

Ortelius,  of  Antwerp,  in  1570,  took  up  again  the  two-fold  idea 
of  Kadesh ; and,  in  the  maps  accompanying  his  “ Thcatrum  Orbis 
Terrarum,”  he  located  Kadesh-barnea  in  its  proper  place,  south  of 
Hebron,  as  if  in  conformity  to  the  Bible  text ; while,  as  if  to  con- 
form to  his  understanding  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  he  noted  “ Zin 
or  Kadesh  ” at  the  southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  not  far  from  the 
Petra  of  that  day,  which  was  Kerek. 

And  now  came  a new  landmark  in  the  realm  of  popular  bibli- 
cal geography,  in  a treatise  that  had  much  to  do  with  perpetuating 
the  error  of  more  than  one  Kadesh.  Christian  Adrichomius,  a 
Romish  ecclesiastic  of  Holland,  availing  himself  of  the  earlier 
geographical  works,  together  with  the  records  of  study  and  travel 
in  the  field  of  the  Holy  Land,4  brought  much  gathered  material 


1 Cosmog.  Geog.,  B&sle.  2 See  page  193/.,  supra.  3 B&sle,  A.  D.  1574. 

4 Adrichomius  gives  a long  list  of  authorities  consulted  by  him,  including  the  an- 

cient geographers,  and  later  writers,  such  as  William  of  Tyre,  Brocardus,  Mercator, 

Yitriacus,  and  Breydenbach. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH 


197 


into  classified  order,  under  the  title  of  u Theatrum  Terrse  Sanctae.” 
His  work  resembled  the  Onomasticon  in  its  systematic  form,  rather 
than  the  unsystematic  treatise  of  Brocardus.  Its  first  edition  was 
published  at  Cologne,  in  1590,  five  years  after  the  author’s  death. 
At  once  it  had  popular  favor ; and  at  least  five  subsequent  editions 
were  published  within  a century. 

While  the  accompanying  maps  of  the  Holy  Land  were  more  in 
detail  and  fuller  than  those  published  before  his  day,  they  were 
less  accurate  concerning  the  region  of  the  Hebrew  wanderings ; for 
they  actually  gave  no  hint  of  two  arms  to  the  Bed  Sea,  and  of  the 
peninsula  formed  by  them.  His  method  of  solving  difficulties 
concerning  the  location  of  Kadesh  was  eminently  simple.  It  was 
merely  by  multiplying  the  sites.  He  gave  Kadesh,  Kadesh-barnea, 
the  Desert  of  Kadesh,  and  Kadesh -palm 1 (a  name  which  came  from 
a misreading  in  the  Apocrypha2),  as  four  distinct  places.  The 
Desert  of  Kadesh,  or  of  “ Zin,  which  is  Kadesh,”  he  located  at  the 
south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  sweeping  down  toward  the  Bed  Sea; 
and  in  that  desert  he  located  Kadesh,  or  Meribah-Kadesh ; also 
Kadesh-palm.  Kadesh-barnea,  with  Bithmah,  he  located  at  its 
proper  place,  on  the  south  of  Palestine,  half-way  across  to  the 
Mediterranean.  With  this  variety  to  choose  from,  it  was  easy  for 
any  one  to  quote  Adrichomius  in  justification  of  a favorite  site  of 
Kadesh;  and  Adrichomius  became,  and  long  remained,  a popular 
authority  in  his  field. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  work  of  Adrichomius,  there 
came  a more  modestly  pretentious  work  by  Bunting,  of  Magde- 
burg, under  the  title  of  “Itinerarium  Sacrse  Scriptune.”  First 
printed  in  German,  in  1591,  it  was  translated,  with  some  re-shap- 

1 Edition  of  1600,  p.  118,  a,  21 ; b,  22,  23,  24. 

2 Ecclesiasticus  24 : 14.  “ I shot  upward  like  a palm  tree  on  the  sea-shores,”  or 
“ in  Engaddi  (ev  ar/talolr  ; 248,  Co.,  ev  TaddL , i.  e.,  ev  ’E  yyafil ] ev  ’Eyyddoic,  296, 
308  ; ev  Tadoic;,  253  ; Old  Lat.,  in  Cades).  All  are  clearly  corrections  for  the  first.” 
(Schaff-Bissell  Com.  on  Apoc.,  in  loco.) 


198 


XADESIl-BARNEA. 


ing,  into  English,  as  “The  Travels  of  the  Holy  Patriarchs  and 
Prophets,”  etc. ; and  it  easily  held  a place  for  more  than  a century. 
This  work  actually  assumed  to  give  the  precise  latitude  and  longi- 
tude of  every  scriptural  site,  together  with  its  distance  in  miles 
from  J erusalem ; and  at  every  before  debatable  point,  including 
every  station  of  the  wanderings,  it  was  as  prompt  and  positive 
with  an  unambiguous  answer,  as  is  an  Arab  guide  in  locating  sites 
in  expectation  of  bakhsheesh.  Consistency  was  evidently  of  less 
importance  than  explicitness  in  this  author’s  various  locations. 

In  this  work,1  “ Kades-Barnea  ” is  called  “ a city  of  the  Idume- 
ans ; ” it  is  said  to  be  “ forty  miles  from  Jerusalem  towards  the 
south ; ” its  longitude  is  given  at  65°  22'  (corresponding  with  the 
modern  35°  22'),  and  its  latitude  at  31°  29'  (the  same  as  at 
present.)  Of  “ Zin-Ivades  ” it  is  said  : “ This  was  a great  wilder- 
ness lying  between  Ezion-Gaber  and  Kades-Barnea,  being  184 
miles  in  length,  abounding  with  thorns  and  high  mountains. 
Upon  the  north  side  thereof  lay  Mount  Seir  and  Kades-Barnea, 
and  towards  the  south  the  Red  Sea.  It  was  called  Paran  and  Zin, 
of  the  abundance  of  thorns  that  grew  there;  for  Zin  of  Zanan, 
signifies  a sharp  thorn ; Zinnim,  full  of  thorns ; and  Kadesh, 
sanctity  or  holiness.  Here  Moses  and  Aaron  having  struck  the 
Rock  twice,  at  length  it  brought  forth  water ; but  for  their  mur- 
muring and  incredulity  God  would  not  suffer  them  to  go  into  the 
Land  of  Canaan.  This  lay  120  miles  from  Jerusalem  toward  the 
south.”  Of  Rithmah  it  is  affirmed  : “ It  is  distant  from  Jerusalem 
112  miles  toward  the  southeast.”  If  only  these  several  statements 
could  have  been  first  reconciled,  and  then  believed,  the  site  of 
Kadesh-barnea  would  have  been  settled  conclusively  two  centuries 
ago. 

Following  Adrichomius  and  Bunting,  in  the  attempt  to  reconcile 
the  statements  of  Eusebius  and  the  indications  of  the  Bible-text  by 


1 See  the  English  edition,  pp.  117,  119,  121. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 


199 


making  a distinction  between  Kadesh-barnea  and  Kadesh  in  the 
Wilderness  of  Zin,  there  came  Raleigh,1  of  England ; Quaresmius,2 
of  Italy ; Blaeu,3  and  Dapper,4  of  Holland ; Heidmann,5  and  Ho- 
mann,6  of  Germany ; Sanson,7  of  France ; Spanheim,8  of  the  Neth- 
erlands, and  others.  All  of  these  geographers  agreed  in  locating 
Kadesh-barnea,  southerly  from  Hebron,  where  the  Bible  text 
locates  it.  They  differed,  however,  in  the  location  of  the  “ Zin 
which  is  Kadesh  ; ” some  of  them  placing  this  not  far  eastward  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  and  others  placing  it  even  eastward  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

From  travels,  meantime,  there  was  little  light  shed ; although 
an  occasional  gleam  showed  itself  through  such  an  opening  of  the 
desert  closures.  Roger,  a French  missionary,  on  a map  accompa- 
nying his  description  of  the  Holy  Land 9 located  Kadesh  below 
the  Dead  Sea,  as  if  in  accordance  with  its  noting  by  Eusebius  as 
reaching  toward  Petra.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  he  had 
himself  visited  that  region.  At  about  the  same  date,  Antonio  of 
Castile  furnished  a map  with  his  record  of  travels,10  on  which  he 
noted  Petra  as  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  Kadesh  as  southward 
from  Petra.  He,  indeed,  had  a Spanish  precedent,  in  Montano,11 
for  the  locating  of  Kadesh-barnea  well  to  the  southward,  even 
in  the  region  of  Mount  Sinai ; although  the  latter  placed  the  site 
mid-way  between  the  eastern  and  western  bounds  of  the  peninsula, 
while  Antonio’s  map  gave  no  hint  of  a peninsula. 

1 Hist,  of  World , “Zin-cades  ioyneth  to  Arabia  ye  Desert,  and  Cades-barnea  to 
Idumea”  (note  to  Map,  Vol.  I.,  p.  218.) 

2 Hist.  Theolog.  et  Moral.  Terrx  Sanctx , p.  25  /.  3 Map  in  Theat.  Orb.  Terr. 

4 Map  in  Naukeurige  Beschr.van  Pal.,  p.  1.  5 “ Tabula  II.”  in  Palxstina. 

6  Map  “Judaea”  in  Atlas  Novus. 

7  Nicholas  Sanson,  and  afterward  his  sons  William  and  Adrian  published  a num- 
ber of  atlases.  In  the  earliest  map  by  Nicholas  which  I have  seen  (Map  66,  of  the 

editions  of  1664)  only  one  site  is  claimed  for  Kadesh,  and  that  in  its  proper  place  as 

Kadesh-barnea;  butjubsequent  maps  by  the  Sansons  note  two  sites. 

8  Map  “ Palsestina  ” in  Geog.  Sac.  et  Eccles. 

9  La  Terre  Sainte.  10  El  devoto  Peregrino. 

11  Cited  as  authority  for  the  maps  in  Planting  Bible,  A.  d.  1583. 


200 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


On  the  other  hand,  Christopher  Fiirer,  of  Germany,  went  over 
the  desert  between  Egypt  and  Palestine  in  1565-67  ; and  after- 
wards wrote  an  account  of  his  journeyings  in  both  Latin  and 
German.  A later  edition  of  this  work,1  prepared  by  his  brother 
Jacob,  was  published  in  1646,  with  carefully-designed  maps,  and 
an  appended  geographical  chapter.  On  these  maps,  Kadesh  and 
Kadesh-barnea  are  together  on  the  southern  border  of  the  Holy 
Land,  in  the  proper  central  position.  Again,  the  map  accompany- 
ing the  itinerary  of  Salomon  Schweigger,2  of  Nuremberg,  locates 
Kadesh  at  the  same  point,  without  duplicating  it  elsewhere. 

It  was  in  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,3  that  Light- 
foot  published  his  still  famous  “ Horse  Hebraicse,77  which  threw 
such  a flood  of  new  light  on  many  a dark  passage  in  the  Bible 
and  in  the  Talmud.  As  has  already  been  mentioned,  he  took  up 
this  puzzling  question  of  a double  Reqam  and  a double  Kadesh, 
and  although  he  did  not  seem  to  surmise  the  reason  for  the  appa- 
rent duplicating  (in  the  name  of  the  Kock-Kadesh  and  the  Kock- 
Petra),  he  was  pronounced  in  his  conviction  that  Kadesh  and 
Kadesh-barnea  were  one,  or  were  coincident.  Indeed,  on  this 
point  his  argument  from  the  Bible-text  was  and  is  unanswerable  ; 
and  it  would  seem  to  be  overwhelmingly  conclusive.4  A school- 
boy can  understand  it.  In  substance  it  is  this : The  gathering 
place  of  Israel  after  its  thirty-eight  years  of  wandering  was 
“ Kadesh ; 77 5 not  called  “ Kadesh-barnea/7  but  simply  Kadesh. 
That  was  the  “ city  77  Kadesh,  on  the  uttermost  borders  of  Edom, 
from  which  the  messengers  were  sent  to  Edom’s  king.  That 
Kadesh  was  the  place  of  murmuring  for  water  ; and  in  conse- 
quence it  came  to  be  called  “ Meribah,77  or  “ Strife,77  or  “ Meribah- 
Kadesh.77  6 Afterwards,  Meribah-Kadesh  is  named  as  a central  or 

1 Reis-Beschreib.  2 Reiss- Beschreib.  3 From  1658  to  1674. 

4 Horae  Heb .,  Vol.  I.,  p.  21.  5 Exod.  20 : 1. 

6 Comp.  Exod.  20:  13,  24;  27:  14;  Deut.  32:  51;  33:  8. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  FULLER  RESEARCH. 


201 


pivotal  point  of  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Holy  Land.1  But 
again  it  is  declared  that  the  pivotal  or  central  point  of  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  Holy  Land  is  “ Kadesh-barnea ; ” 2 not  Kadesh 
simply,  but  Kadesh-barnea.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  both 
“ Kadesh  ” and  “ Kadesh-barnea  ” are  identical  with  “ Meribah- 
Kadesh  and  if  proving  them  equal  to  the  same  thing  does  not 
prove  them  equal  to  each  other,  one  of  the  familiar  axioms  of 
mathematics  will  have  to  be  amended.  The  force  of  that  argu- 
ment has  never  been  shaken,  indeed  it  may  be  said  never  to  have 
been  directly  assailed. 

In  this  matter,  however,  as  in  many  another,  it  has  been  shown 
that  it  is  easier  to  mislead  popular  opinion  by  an  erroneous  state- 
ment, than  to  correct  popular  opinion  by  a demonstration  of  that 
error.  Eusebius  and  Adrichomius  were  still  looked  upon  as 
original  sources  of  information  concerning  the  Holy  Land  and  its 
surroundings ; and  many  a scholar  who  turned  to  them  for  light 
was  influenced  by  their  misconceptions,  even  after  Lightfoot  had 
made  the  truth  clear  to  those  who  followed  his  processes  of  reason- 
ing. Moreover,  the  old  error  of  two  Kadeshes  was  given  a new 
start,  and  with  fresh  life,  in  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  by  the  important  geographical  works  of  Cellarius3  and 
Reland,4  of  Germany,  and  Wells,5  of  England.  Each  of  these 
works  repeated  the  old  arguments  for  a double  Kadesh,  and  not 
one  of  them  met  or  mentioned  the  Bible  evidence,  as  presented  by 
Lightfoot,  in  proof  of  the  identity  of  Kadesh  and  Kadesh-barnea. 
When  such  leaders  as  these  were  newly  at  fault,  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  that  the  public  generally  inclined  to  the  old  error. 

Yet,  all  this  time  there  were  independent  investigators  who 
recognized  the  plain  indications  of  the  Bible  text  despite  the 
vague  and  misleading  suggestions  of  Eusebius.  Prominent  among 


1 Ezek.  47  : 19  (margin) ; 48 : 28. 

3 Not.  Orb.  Antiq.  4 Palaestina. 


2 Num.  34 : 4 ; Josh.  15 : 3. 
5 Hist.  Geog.  of  O.  T.  and  N.  T. 


202 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


these  was  Hasius,  a German  mathematician  and  theologian,  whose 
careful  work  on  the  geography  of  the  Holy  Land1  has  not  had 
the  prominence  which  its  real  merit  would  justify.2  He  recognized 
Kadesh-barnea  as  identical  with  Kadesh  in  the  Wilderness  of  Zin, 
and  he  located  it  according  to  the  biblical  indications,  on  the 
southern  boundary-line  of  Judah.  Again,  Bachiene,  a Dutch 
geographer,  approved  the  identification,  by  Breydenbach  and 
Fabri,  of  Kades  just  below  Gaza;3  and  Ernst  F.  K.  Rosenmuller, 
a German  geographer,  adopted  the  same  view,4  although  he  sub- 
sequently5 wavered  in  his  opinion. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  track  these  lines  of  varying  opinion  through 
all  the  realm  of  biblical  geography  and  biblical  comment,  down  to 
the  period  of  fresh  investigation,  on  a broader  basis  of  knowl- 
edge, into  the  facts  of  the  Bible  story.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that 
almost  without  exception  all  were  agreed  in  locating  “ Kadesh- 
barnea  ” on  the  southern  border  of  the  Holy  Land,  southerly  from 
Hebron,  while  some  would  find  another  “ Kadesh  ” nearer  to  the 
Dead  Sea.  The  Bible  clearly  demanded  the  westerly  location  of 
Kadesh-barnea ; even  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  by  a liberal  construc- 
tion, justified  it ; and  scholars  were  practically  a unit  in  so  recog- 
nizing the  truth,  down  to  the  days  of  Reland,  and  subsequently. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  a second  Kadesh  were,  its  necessary 
proximity  to  the  uncertain  borders  of  Edom,  together  with  the  in- 
ference from  the  rabbins,  and  from  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and 
Jerome,  that  it  was  in  some  way  near  to  Reqam  or  the  Rock, 
which  was  supposed  to  be  Petra.  To  find  that  the  borders  of 
Edom  extended  westward  of  the  ’Arabah,  that  the  Rock  was 
another  name  for  Kadesh-barnea  as  well  as  a name  for  a strong- 

1  Regni  Daviclici  et  Salomoncei  Description  etc.  Nuremberg,  A.  D.  1739. 

2 Singularly  enough  this  valuable  work  finds  no  mention  in  the  bibliographical 
list  of  Robinson  or  in  that  of  Yon  Raumer. 

3 Palaestina, Yol.  V.,  p.  384,  note.  4 Scholia  in  V.  T.  (Leipzig,  a.d.  1795),  in  loco. 

5 See  his  Bibl.  Alterth.  (a.  d.  1828)  III.,  86. 


FRESH  HINTS  AND  SURMISES  FROM  DESERT  TRA  VEL.  203 


hold  of  Mount  Seir,  and  that  the  Bible  made  Kadesh-barnea  iden- 
tical with  Kadesh  in  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  would  at  any  time 
have  proved  sufficient  to  fix  the  location  of  Kadesh-barnea,  and  of 
course  of  Kadesh  also,  southerly  from  Hebron,  where  well-nigh 
all  had  been  ready  to  admit  was  one  of  the  two  sites,  if  two  were 
a necessity. 

5.  FRESH  HINTS  AND  SURMISES  FROM  DESERT  TRAVEL. 

Until  and  during  the  eighteenth  century,  the  ordinary  route  of  tra- 
vel between  Mount  Sinai  and  Jerusalem,  for  those  who  visited  those 
sacred  sites,  was  along  the  western  borders  of  the  peninsula,  enter- 
ing the  Holy  Land  at  Gaza.  More  commonly  the  route  was  from 
Suez  to  Mount  Sinai,  and  back  over  the  same  course ; occasionally 
the  route  from  Mount  Sinai  was  northward  to  Castle  Nakhl,  thence 
northeasterly  to  Gaza ; and  on  rare  occasions  a Christian  crossed 
the  desert  to  Mekkeh.1  A direct  journey  from  Mount  Sinai  to 
Hebron  was  almost  or  quite  unknown ; hence  there  was  little  op- 
portunity of  exploring  the  region  where  all  the  Bible  indications 
would  locate  Kadesh-barnea.  Yet  travelers  were  tempted  then,  as 
now,  to  find  more  of  the  Bible  sites,  in  the  line  of  their  own 
journeying,  than  a close  adherence  to  the  Bible  descriptions  would 
fully  warrant;  and  this  increased  the  number  of  suggested  loca- 
tions of  Kadesh. 

In  1722,  Dr.  Shaw,  an  English  clergyman,  traveled  in  Egypt, 
Arabia,  and  Palestine.  He  was  inclined  to  locate  Kadesh-barnea 
near  Castle  Nakhl  (which  he  would  identify  with  En-mishpat), 
and  he  argued  in  favor  of  this  site 2 with  more  of  reason  than  the 
advocates  of  many  another  site  since  his  day.  He  recognized  this 
as  a prominent  oasis  in  the  evident  direction  of  Kadesh-barnea 


1See,  for  example,  Thevenot’s  Reisen,  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  a.  d.  1693,  and 
Muller’s  Fremdling  zu  Jerusalem,  Vienna  and  Nuremberg,  a.  d.  1735. 

2 See  his  Travels,  p.  318  ff. 


204 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


from  Mount  Sinai : and  according  to  his  calculation  of  the  dis- 
tance, this  oasis  was  sufficiently  far  northward.  He  was  on  the 
right  track,  but  he  stopped  to  locate  before  his  full  journey  north- 
ward was  completed.  His  identification  was  approved  by  Van 
Hamelsveld,1  a Dutch  geographer  of  the  same  century. 

A little  later  than  Shaw,  Bishop  Pococke  published  his  exten- 
sive “ Description  of  the  East,”  in  report  of  his  own  travels  and 
studies.  In  this,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that  Kadesh  and  the 
Wilderness  of  Zin  were  perhaps  to  be  found  (i  about  sixten  miles 
from  the  convent  [at  Mount  Sinai]  to  the  northwest.”2  His  sole 
reason  for  this  opinion  was,  that  the  Prefetto  of  Egypt  had  seen  there 
“ exactly  such  another  stone  as  the  rock  of  Massa  and  Meribah  in 
Rephidim,  with  the  same  sort  of  openings  all  down,  and  the  signs 
where  the  water  ran.”  This  stone  “ was  likewise  called  the  stone  of 
Moses,”  by  the  Arabs ; and  it  was  said  that  “ this  must  be  the 
rock  of  Meribah,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin  or  Kadesh,  which  Moses 
smote  twice,  and  the  water  came  out  abundantly ; [this]  being  after 
they  returned  into  those  parts  from  Eziongeber.”  And  this  is  the 
extent  of  the  disclosures  concerning  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea 
down  to  the  beginning  of  the  present  century. 

The  first  traveler  of  this  century  who  crossed  the  desert  below 
Palestine  by  a route  which  carried  him  in  the  vicinity  of  the  region 
where  the  Bible  indications,  and  the  well-nigh  universal  opinion  of 
Bible  geographers  up  to  his  time,  would  locate  Kadesh -barnea,  was 
Seetzen,  a German  explorer  of  more  than  ordinary  powers  as  an 
observer.  His  death  in  Arabia  prevented  his  giving  any  com- 
pleted form  to  the  results  of  his  researches ; but  his  published 
letters  and  journals  comprise  much  information  of  value.  In 
March  and  April,  1807, 3 he  journeyed  southward  from  Hebron. 
On  the  30th  of  March,  in  the  vicinity  of  Wady  el-’Ayn,  or  more 
accurately,  Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,4  near  the  common  trunk  of 

i Bib.  Geog.  III.,  394.  2 Vol.  I.,  p.  147.  3 Reisen,  III.,  47  /. 

4 See  Robinson's  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  189. 


FRESH  HINTS  AND  SURMISES  FR  OM  DESER  T TRA  VEL.  205 


the  desert-roads,  which  has  been  referred  to  as  the  probable  halt- 
ing-place of  Kedor-la’omer  on  his  northward  march/  Seetzen  en- 
countered ’Azazimeh  Arabs,  or  the  u Adsasme  ” as  he  calls  them. 
And  then,  on  that  edge  of  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  he  came 
on  a “ flat  dry  wady,”  which  was  called  “ Wadi  el-Kdeis.”  Al- 
though Seetzen  did  not  attempt  any  identification  of  this  name  with 
that  of  Kadesh,  the  correspondence  of  the  two  names  (the  Hebrew 
Qadhesh,  and  the  Arabic  Qadees 1  2 — which  seems  to  be  that  which 
is  noted  by  Seetzen)  is  obvious. 

And  this  is  the  first  hint  of  the  ancient  name  in  the  Arabic 
nomenclature  of  the  region  reported  by  a modern  traveler.  Yet 
an  old  time  Arabic  geographer3  had  reported  a “ Qadoos  ” at  one 
day’s  journey  south  of  “ Mesjid  Ibraheem”  (which  Wetzstein 
understands  to  be  Hebron,  but  which  may  be  Beer-sheba,  as  Abra- 
ham’s “ place  of  worship  ”).  These  are  new  gleams  of  light  on  a 
possible  identification  of  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

After  Seetzen  came  Burckhardt,  a Swiss  traveler,  who  was  fitted 
by  nature  and  by  careful  training  for  eminent  service  in  his  varied 
fields  of  Oriental  research.  He  was  in  the  East  during  most  of  the 
time  from  1809  until  his  death  at  Cairo  in  1817.  In  1812,  he  dis- 
covered the  ruins  of  ancient  Petra,  tlie  Rock-City  which  was 
doubtless  one  of  the  Reqams  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  and  the  early 
Christian  waiters ; and  at  the  same  time  he  opened  up  to  the 
modern  world  the  extensive  ’Arabah,  or  the  Ghor  of  the  Arabic 
geographers.  In  doing  this  latter  service,  he  suggested  that  the 
’Arabah  was  Kadesh-barnea;4  and  thereby  he  not  only  gave  fresh 
life  to  the  old  notion  that  “ Kadesh”  was  in  that  vicinity,  but  he 
gave  a start  to  a new  error,  that  “ Kadesh-barnea  ” was  there  in  the 
land  of  Edom,  instead  of  on  the  southern  border  of  Judah,  west- 

1 See  page  42,  supra.  2 See  page  16,  supra,  note. 

3 Maqdisi,  as  quoted  from  a manuscript  in  the  Berlin  Museum  by  Wetzstein  in 

u Excursus  III.,”  in  Delitzsch’s  Com.  on  Genesis. 

4 Travels  in  Syria,  p.  443. 


206 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


ward.  “The  existence  of  the  valley  El-Araba,”  he  said,  “the 
Kadesh-barnea,  perhaps,  of  the  Scriptures,  appears  to  have  been 
unknown  both  to  ancient  and  modern  geographers,  although  it 
forms  a prominent  feature  in  the  topography  of  Syria  and  Arabia 
Petrsea.”  Burckhardt  did  not  at  any  time  visit  the  western  por- 
tion of  the  upper  desert,  to  become  acquainted  with  the  ’Azazimeh 
mountain  tract  which  Seetzen  had  skirted,  thereby  to  be  able  to 
compare  that  region  with  the  ’Arabah ; nor  did  he  attempt  any 
argument  in  proof  of  his  proposed  identification  of  Kadesh-barnea. 
He  simply  made  the  suggestion  of  the  identity  of  the  two  places ; 
but  that  was  enough,  from  such  a man  as  himself,  to  give  the  idea 
not  only  currency  but  popular  acceptance. 

Following  Burckhardt,  came  Riippell,1  a German  naturalist, 
who,  from  1822  to  1831,  made  important  additions  to  the  sum  of 
knowledge  concerning  the  desert  region ; but  he  proffered  no  sug- 
gestion as  to  the  site  of  Kadesh.  In  1828,  M.  Leon  de  Laborde, 
a French  artist  and  biblical  scholar,  with  his  companion  M. 
Linant,  visited  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  supplemented  the  dis- 
coveries of  Burckhardt  in  the  site  of  ancient  Petra  by  a series  of 
admirable  drawings.2  Laborde  accepted  the  suggestion  of  Burck- 
hardt that  the  ’Arabah  was  Kadesh-barnea,3  and  he  even  located 
the  “ city”  of  Kadesh  at  “ Embasch,”4  at  the  mouth  of  Wady 
Jerafeh,  “ the  great  drain  of  all  the  long  basin  between  the  ’Arabah 
and  the  ridges  west  of  Turf  er-Rukn,  extending  from  Jebel  et-Tih 
on  the  south  to  the  ridge  between  Jebel  ’Araif  and  el-Miikrah  on 
the  north.”5 

Another  location  of  the  “city,”  or  of  the  “fountain,”  of  Kadesh, 
in  Burckliardt’s  ’Arabah-Kadesh,  was  made  by  Karl  von  Raumer, 
a German  scientist  and  theologian,  who  studied  and  wrote  upon 
the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites  before  he  had  visited  the  East,  and 

1 Reisen.  2 Voyage  de  l’ Arab.  PH.  3 See  his  Maps,  in  his  Voyage. 

4 Comment .,  at  Num.  33:  36.  5 Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.  I.,  180. 


FRESH  HINTS  AND  SURMISES  FROM  DESERT  TRA  VEL.  207 


who  again  discussed  the  subject  in  connection  with  a record  of  his 
travels  there.  It  was  in  1836  that  he  proposed  an  identification 
of  Kadesh  in  the  upper  ’Arabah.  His  description  of  his  location 
was  somewhat  confused/  as  he  apparently  supposed  Jebel  Madurah 
to  be  nearer  the  ’Arabah  than  it  is ; but  subsequently  he  settled  on 
’Ayn  Hash1  2 as  the  site  for  his  championship.  But  all  that  can  be 
said  for  or  against  that  site  is,  that  if  the  Israelites  were  ever  up 
there  in  the  meshes  of  that  Edomitish  net,  ’Ayn  Hasb  would  have 
answered  as  well  as  any  one  of  a half  dozen  spots  for  Kadesh-barnea. 

From  the  days  of  Burckhardt  and  Laborde,  the  records  of  des- 
ert travel  have  been  numerous  and  intelligent,  quite  beyond  any- 
thing known  before  that  time.  Yet,  after  all,  comparatively  few 
travelers  have  passed  up  the  ’Arabah  into  the  Holy  Land,  and 
fewer  still  have  gone  directly  northward  to  Hebron  from  the  lower 
or  central  desert.  Hence  the  references,  from  this  source,  to  any 
supposed  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  are  by  no  means  numerous.  In 
1836,  Stephens,  an  American  traveler,  went  up  the  ’Arabah,  and 
was  naturally  inclined  to  think  that  Kadesh-barnea  must  have 
been  somewhere  along  his  route  to  Hebron.3  The  next  year  Lord 
Lindsay,  an  Englishman,  went  over  the  same  ground,  and  had  a 
similar  opinion.4  Von  Schubert,  who,  like  Von  Raumer  and 
Ruppell,  was  a German  naturalist,  was  in  that  region  the  same 
year  as  Lord  Lindsay.  He  thought  Kadesh-barnea  must  have 
been  near  Jebel  Madurah;5  and  Count  Bertou,6  a Frenchman,  who 
shortly  followed  him,  reported  the  name  “Kadessa”  as  still 
lingering  there.  Other  travelers,  meantime,  may  have  given  their 
surmises  on  this  point ; but  I do  not  find  them  recorded,  although 
I have  looked  for  this  purpose  through  the  writings  of  Volney,7 
Ali  Bey,8  Irby  and  Mangles,9  Legh,10  Henniker,11  and  Russegger,12 

1 Her  Zug  der  Israel.,  pp.  34-37.  2 Palastina,  pp.  480-488. 

3 Incidents  of  Travel,  II.,  112.  4 Letters,  II.,  22,  50.  5 Reise,  II.,  444. 

6 Quoted  by  Robinson,  {Bib.  Res.,  first  ed.  II.,  659-669). 

’ Travels.  8 Travels.  9 Travels.  10  “ Excursion.”  11  Notes.  12  Reisen. 


208 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


among  those  whose  routes  would  have  been  most  likely  to  suggest 
an  identification  of  Kadesh-barnea  in  view  of  the  surmises  of  their 
predecessors. 


6.  ROBINSON’S  PROPOSED  IDENTIFICATION. 

And  now  we  come  to  a new  era  in  biblical  geography,  as  marked 
by  the  travels  of  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  an  American  explorer 
whose  observations  in  Palestine  and  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai  have 
practically  given  the  base  line  and  trigonometrical  stations  for  all 
the  following  surveys  of  those  lands  of  the  Bible.  The  subsequent 
work  of  scholars  and  explorers  in  that  region  has  been,  in  a sense, 
little  more  than  the  testing  of  his  preliminary  surveys.  “ Robin- 
son’s Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Adjacent  Re- 
gions ” have  been  hardly  less  important  and  influential  in  their 
field  in  our  day,  than  were  the  works  in  various  former  times  of 
Eusebius,  and  Jerome,  and  Brocardus,  and  Adrichomius,  and 
Reland,  in  a similar  field.  The  many  unmistakable  new-identifi- 
cations  of  biblical  sites  made  by  Robinson  have  been  either 
accepted  without  question,  or  abundantly  sustained  by  farther 
examination  ; and  even  his  occasional  errors  of  identification  have 
naturally  gained  a hold  on  the  Bible-studying  public  hardly  less 
firm  and  ineradicable  than  the  truths  brought  out  by  him. 

Robinson  was  impressed  with  the  striking  features  of  the  mountain 
range  on  the  east  of  the  ’Arabah,  where  Burckhardt  had  dis- 
covered the  ruins  of  ancient  Petra,  and  he  yielded  to  the  tradi- 
tional identification  of  Mount  Hor  at  Jebel  Neby  Haroon  ;l 
although  it  was  obviously  within  the  limits  of  the  Mount  Seir 
which  the  Israelites  were  not  permitted  to  enter.  From  this 
divergence  he  was  farther  led  to  believe  that  the  Israelites,  instead 
of  going  across  the  “ great  and  terrible  wilderness  ” of  the  Desert 


Bib.  Res.,  II.,  131-173. 


ROBINSON'S  PROPOSED  IDENTIFICATION. 


209 


et-Teeh  by  any  direct  route  from  Mount  Sinai  to  Canaan,  actually 
descended  into  the  ’Arabah,  and  proceeded  northward  into  a region 
which  he  had  before  recognized  as  within  the  probable  reach  of 
Edom’s  occupancy.1  And  there,  in  that  Edomitish  territory,  on 
the  open  highway,  exposed  to  hostile  attack  in  every  direction,  and 
in  no  sense  covered  or  secluded,  was  his  suggested  site  for  Kadesh- 
barnea,  an  objective  point  of  an  invading  army ; whence  to  send 
spies  into  the  enemy’s  country  beyond  it. 

The  precise  spot  selected  by  Robinson  for  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  was  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  a desert  spring  near  the  western  slope 
of  the  ’Arabah,  and  just  above  the  western  bank  of  the  Wady  el- 
Jayb,  the  peculiar  “wady  within  a wady”2  which  is  “the  vast 
drain  of  all  the  ’Arabah,”3  and  which  in  the  rainy  season  receives 
also  the  water-flow  of  the  Wady  Jerafeh  which  in  turn  drains  the 
western  desert  of  Et-Teeh.  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  is  in  a northwesterly 
direction  from  Jebel  Neby  Haroon,  and  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
’Arabah. 

Referring  to  Wady  el-Jayb,  as  one  crosses  it  from  east  to  west, 
Robinson  says:4  “Just  on  its  westward  side,  where  the  land  slopes 
up  very  gradually  into  a tract  of  low  limestone  hills,  lies  ’Ain  el- 
Weibeh,  one  of  the  most  important  watering  places  in  all  the  great 
valley.  There  are  here  indeed  three  fountains,  issuing  from  the 
chalky  rock  of  which  the  slope  is  composed.  . . . The  three  foun- 
tains are  some  rods  apart,  running  out  in  small  streams  from  the 
foot  of  a low  rise  of  ground,  at  the  edge  of  the  hills.  The  water 
is  not  abundant ; and  in  the  two  northernmost  sources  has  a sickly 
hue,  like  most  desert  fountains,  with  a taste  of  sulphuretted  hydro- 
gen. . . . But  the  southernmost  source  consists  of  three  small  rills 
of  limpid  and  good  water,  flowing  out  at  the  bottom  of  a small 
excavation  in  the  rock.  The  soft  chalky  stone  has  crumbled  away, 
forming  a semicircular  ledge  about  six  feet  high  around  the 

1 See  page  86,  supra.  2 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  120. 

14 


2 Ibid.,  II.,  118. 


* Ibid.,  II.,  174. 


210 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


spring,  and  now  a few  feet  distant  from  it.  The  intermediate 
space  is  at  present  occupied  by  earth ; but  the  rock  apparently  once 
extended  out,  so  that  the  water  actually  issued  from  its  base.”  Yet 
all  this  “ rock  ” is  down  in  Wady  ’Arabah ; and  the  name  of  the 
fountain  “El-Weibeh”  is  according  to  Robinson’s  own  rendering, 
a “ Hole  with  Water.” 1 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  no  trace  of  the  former  importance  or 
sacredness  of  “ Kadesh-barnea,”  in  the  name,  or  in  the  appearance, 
of  “’Ain  el-Weibeh”  at  the  present  day.  Indeed  on  this  point 
Robinson  says : “We  could  find  here  no  trace  of  the  remains  of 
former  dwellings.”  And  again : “ The  surrounding  desert  has 
long  since  resumed  its  rights ; and  all  traces  of  the  city  and  of  its 
very  name  have  disappeared.”  It  would,  in  fact,  have  been  very 
strange  if,  at  any  time,  a “ city,”  or  a settlement  of  any  kind,  had 
been  attempted  there  “ upon  the  plain,  or  rather  the  rolling  desert 
of  the  ’Arabah ; ” the  surface  of  which,  in  that  very  region,  is 
“ everywhere  furrowed  and  torn  with  the  beds  of  torrents.” 2 And 
as  to  the  “ rock  ” from  the  “ base  ” of  which  the  water  is  supposed 
to  have  formerly  issued,  Robinson  evidently  employs  the  word  in 
a geological  rather  than  a popular  sense ; for  there  is  no  Rock,  no 
(( Sel’a,”  no  imposing  cliff,  down  there  in  the  ’Arabah  bed.  The 
“ soft  chalky  stone  ” which  may  have  once  been  the  basin  wall  of 
the  “ Hole  with  Water,”  is  a sorry  representative  of  the  Sel’a 
“ before  ” which  Moses  and  Aaron  “ gathered  the  congregation 
together,”  when  the  people  had  murmured  for  lack  of  its  accus- 
tomed water-flow.3 

In  support  of  his  identification  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  as  Kadesh- 
barnea,  Robinson  proffered  no  proofs  beyond  other  suggested  iden- 
tifications in  the  neighborhood ; all  of  which  identifications  must 

i See  Eli  Smith’s  “Arabic  Index,”  s.  v.  “ el-Weibeh,”  Bib.  Res.,  III.,  first  edition ; 
also  Robinson’s  Index  to  Bib.  Res.,  II.,  591. 

2 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  121. 


3 Num.  20. 


ROWLANDS' $ DISCOVERY. 


211 


stand  or  fall  with  this  one.1  Thus,  for  example,  he  now  deemed 
the  ’ Arabah  as  the  “ uttermost  border  ” of  ancient  Edom  westward, 
although  he  had  before  expressed  the  opinion  that  this  was  not  so ; 
and  he  gave  no  reason  for  a change  of  his  opinion,  unless  it  were 
that  the  fixing  of  Kadesh-barnea  at  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  made  a change 
of  the  supposed  boundaries  of  Edom  a necessary  sequence. 

But  whether  Robinson  had  good  arguments  or  none  at  all  in 
support  of  one  of  his  identifications,  his  soundness  and  accuracy  at 
so  many  points  were  sufficient  to  carry  the  multitude  with  him,  and 
to  incline  even  other  good  scholars  in  his  direction,  in  every  case 
where  his  expression  of  conviction  was  positive.  Hence  it  came  to 
pass,  that  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  took  its  place  as  a proper  site  for 
Kadesh-barnea. 


7.  ROWLANDS’S  DISCOVERY. 

It  was  just  after  the  first  publication  of  Robinson’s  “ Biblical 
Researches,”  that  another  new  element  was  introduced  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Kadesh-barnea  question,  by  a remarkable  discovery 
made  by  the  Rev.  John  Rowlands,  an  English  clergyman,  who  was 
a friend  and  companion  of  Canon  Williams,  then  chaplain  to 
Bishop  Alexander  of  Jerusalem. 

Rowlands  had  already  passed  some  time  in  the  East,  including  a 
winter  in  Egypt,  a summer  in  Mount  Lebanon,  and  nine  months 
in  Jerusalem.2  He  had  been  twice  through  the  Sinaitic  desert, 
taking  both  the  eastern  and  western  routes,  and  becoming  familiar 

1 He  even  looks  at  the  Smooth  Mountain,  eight  hours  distant  from  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh, 
as  the  mountain  which  the  Israelites  ascended  from  Kadesh  (Num.  14  : 40) ; and  he 
says  that  the  name  Es-Sfifah  “is  in  form  identical  with  the  Hebrew  Zephath”  ( Bib. 
Res.  II.,  181) ; although  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  and  hIaoJI  can  be  called 
“ identical”  in  either  form  or  meaning. 

2 The  facts  given  herewith  are  obtained  from  my  personal  correspondence  with  Mr. 
Rowlands,  in  supplement  of  the  information  published  in  his  report  of  his  dis- 
coveries, as  herein  referred  to. 


212 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


with  the  ’Arabah,  as  well  as  with  the  western  route  into  Palestine. 
Beginning  the  study  of  Arabic  under  a Syrian  priest  at  Con- 
stantinople, he  acquired  sufficient  familiarity  with  the  language, 
not  only  to  write  it,  but  to  speak  it  with  tolerable  proficiency.  His 
Bible  studies  had  satisfied  him  of  the  general  location  of  Kadesh  - 
barnea,  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  and  he  became  interested 
in  a search  for  its  site.  His  first  movement  in  this  direction  was 
with  his  friend  Williams,  in  a trip  from  Hebron,  southward,  in 
October,  1842,  under  the  guidance  of  “ Sheikh  Salim  of  the 
Teahars  ” 1 (Teeyahah  ?)  Their  discovery  of  the  southern  border 
line  of  the  Promised  Land,  in  the  natural  barrier  of  the  Smooth 
Mountain  (Mount  Halak),  as  they  stood  on  that  wall-rampart,  at 
the  westward  of  Jebel  Madurah,  has  already  been  cited.2  It  was 
while  they  stood  there,  that  Shaykh  Selim  informed  them  that  at 
some  distance  westerly  (or  southwesterly),  there  was  a place  known 
as  “ Kadese,”  which  they  instantly  recognized  as  a term  corres- 
pondent with  Kadesh,  or  Kadesh-barnea,  on  that  same  southern 
boundary  line.  But  they  were  at  that  time  unable  to  pursue  their 
investigations  farther ; and  they  returned  to  J erusalem  with  only 
this  gleam  of  horizon-light  on  the  site  of  Kadesh. 

It  was  subsequent  to  this,  that  Rowlands  made  a new  and  suc- 
cessful attempt  to  find  the  ancient  site.  On  his  leaving  Jerusalem 
for  his  home,  he  took  the  route  by  Hebron  and  Gaza  in  order  that 
he  might  pursue  his  search  on  the  strength  of  the  hint  from  Shaykh 
Selim.  His  companion  on  this  trip  was  Mr.  Johns,  architect  of 
the  English  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  for  a time  the  British  vice- 
consul  there.  At  Gaza,  Rowlands  sent  for  two  shaykhs  of  the 
Terabeen  Arabs,  a tribe  which  roams  from  Gaza  to  Suez,  and  east- 
ward toward,  and  even  into,  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract. 
“ When  they  came,”  he  says,3  “ I explained  to  them  where  we 

1 See  Williams’s  Holy  City,  Appendix,  p.  487.  2 See  page  95  supra. 

3 This,  also,  is  from  a letter  written  to  me  by  Mr.  Rowlands,  under  date  of  Sept. 

20,  1882. 


ROWLANDS' S DISCOVERY. 


213 


wished  to  go,  and  what  we  wanted  to  find,  and  asked  them  if  they 
knew  any  place  in  their  territory  or  neighborhood  called  Kadesh, 
or  Kades,  or  Kades,  and  they  said  at  once,  ‘ La,  Hawajah,  mafish 
‘ No,  sir,  there  is  not/  or  ‘ there  is  nothing  of  the  sort/  ‘ Perhaps 
I do  not  pronounce  it  properly,  or  as  you  do/  I said ; and  I tried 
‘ Kodes/  ‘Koodes/  and  ‘Kudes’;  but  they  still  persisted  in  say- 
ing ‘No’ — ‘ La,  mafish/  or  ‘-feesh’ — ‘No,  there  is  nothing  of  the 
sort/  Having  tried  again  various  sounds,  I happened  to  say 
‘ Kadeis/  or  ‘ Kadase/  laying  the  accent,  or  emphasis,  on  the  last 
syllable,  and  they  cried  out  at  once,  ‘ Fi,  fi,  fi/  ‘There  is,  there  is, 
there  is  / ‘ Ain  Kadeis/  or  ‘ Qadeis/  sounding  the  ‘ K/  or  ‘ Q/ 
somewhat  like  ‘ G/  that  is,  hard  ‘ G/  I asked  them  all  about  it, 
and  what  sort  of  place  it  was,  and  whether  they  would  take  us  by 
it ; . . . and  they  agreed  to  do  so/’ 

This  new  journey  of  Rowlands  proved  eventful  in  its  discoveries. 
It  was  then  that  he  identified  “ Sebatah  ” as  the  site  of  ancient 
Zephath  ; 1 that  he  pointed  out  “ the  grand  plain  called  Es-Serr  ” 
as  “ the  Seir  alluded  to  in  Deuteronomy  1 : 44,”  where  the 
Amorites  chased  the  defeated  Israelites  toward  Kadesh-barnea ; and 
that  he  called  attention  to  Moilahi,  or  Moilahhi,  as  the  possible  site 
of  Hagar’s  Well,  or  Beer-lahai-roi.2  His  only  formal  report  of 
this  journey  was  in  a familiar  letter  to  his  friend  Williams,  which 
found  a place  in  the  Appendix  to  the  latter’s  volume,  “ The  Holy 
City,”  published  several  years  later.3  That  portion  of  this  letter 
which  describes  the  visit  to  “ Kaddese,”  or  Qadees,  is  here  given 
in  full : 

“ Now,  my  dear  friend,  for  Kadesh , my  much-talked-of  and 
long-sought-for  Kadesh.  You  may  conceive  with  what  pleasure 
I tell  you,  that  I have  at  length  found  this  important  and  in- 
teresting locality  to  my  entire  satisfaction.  Our  excitement  (I  can 
speak  at  least  for  mine  while  we  stood  before  the  Rock  smitten  by 


1 Judges  1 : 17. 


2 Gen.  16  : 14. 


3 In  1845. 


214 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Moses,  and  gazed  upon  the  lovely  stream  which  still  issues  forth 
under  the  base  of  this  Rock)  would  be  quite  indescribable.  I 
cannot  say  that  we  stood  still- — our  excitement  was  so  great  that  we 
could  not  stand  still.  We  paced  backwards  and  forwards;  ex- 
amining the  rock  and  the  source  of  the  stream ; looking  at  the 
pretty  little  cascades  which  it  forms  as  it  descends  into  the  channel 
of  a rain  torrent  beneath ; sometimes  chipping  otf  some  pieces  of 
the  rock,  and  at  other  times  picking  up  some  specimens  and  some 
flowers  along  a green  slope  beneath  it. 

The  Rock  is  a large  single  mass,  or  a small  hill,  of  solid  rock,  a 
spur  of  the  mountain  to  the  north  of  it  rising  immediately  above 
it.  It  is  the  only  visible  naked  rock  in  the  whole  district.  The 
stream,  when  it  reaches  the  channel,  turns  westward,  and,  after 
running  about  three  or  four  hundred  yards,  loses  itself  in  the  sand. 
I have  not  seen  such  a lovely  sight  anywhere  else  in  the  whole 
desert — such  a copious  and  lovely  stream.  I took  two  vials  full  of 
it  away  with  me.  Shall  I send  you  one  ? I think  I must  do  it, 
if  you  will  not  go  and  see  Kadesh  yourself.  But  I must  give  you 
some  particulars  about  the  locality  of  Kades,  or  Kudes,  as  it  is 
called.  I shall  therefore  first  of  all  describe  the  position,  and 
then  adduce  my  proofs  for  its  identity  with  ancient  Kadesh-barnea. 
The  waters  of  Kades,  called  Ain  Kades,  lie  to  the  east  of  the 
highest  part  of  Jebel  Halal,  towards  its  northern  extremity,  about 
twelve  miles  (or  four  and  a-half  hours  by  camel)  to  the  E.S.E.  of 
Moilahhi.  I think  it  must  be  something  like  due  south  from 
Khalasa. 

But  to  the  proofs , which  is  the  most  important  point.  1.  Its 
name  Kades,  or  Kudes  (pronounced  in  English  Kaddase  or  Kud- 
dase),  is  exactly  the  Arabic  form  of  the  Hebrew  name  Kadesh ; 
the  K,  as  you  will  find  in  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic, 
not  being  the  common  Kaf,  but  Kof ; and  giving  the  a sound, 
somewhat  resembling  the  short  u.  2.  The  locality  corresponds 
with,  or  falls  in  the  line  of,  the  southern  boundary  of  the 


ROWLANDS’ S DISCOVERY. 


215 


Promised  Land  (Josh.  15  : 1,  8),  from  the  southern  extremity 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  by  Safaa  [Sufah]  or  Maaleh-Akrabbim,  the 
Wady  el-Murra,  and  the  Wady  el-Arish,  or  the  river  of  Egypt. 
3.  It  corresponds  also  with  the  order  in  which  the  places  of  the 
border  are  mentioned.  Adar  and  Azmon,  two  places  in  the 
border,  which  we  have  discovered  in  the  names  Adeirat  and 
Aseimeh,  sometimes  called  Kadeirat  and  Kaseimeh,  now,  and 
perhaps  always,  merely  fountains  or  springs,  lie  to  the  west  of 
Kades,  and  Wady  el-Arish,  or  [the]  river  of  Egypt,  succeeds  in 
the  same  line.  4.  It  lies  east  of  Jebel  el-Halal,  or  Mount  Halah , 
mentioned  somewhere  by  Jeremiah  [Joshua]  as  the  uttermost 
extremity  of  the  Promised  Land  to  the  south.  5.  It  lies  at  the 
foot  of  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites  (Deut.  1 : 19).  6.  It  is 

situated  near  the  grand  pass  or  entrance  into  the  Promised  Land 
by  the  Beer  Lahai-roi,  which  is  the  only  easy  entrance  from  the 
desert  to  the  east  of  Halal,  and  most  probably  the  entrance  to 
which  the  Hebrews  were  conducted  from  Sinai  towards  the  Land 
of  Promise.  7.  A good  road  leads  to  this  place  all  the  way  from 
Sinai,  and  the  distance  is  about  five  days  of  dromedary-riding,  or 
about  ten  or  eleven  days  of  common  camel-riding,  as  the  Bedouins 
stated  (Deut.  1:2).  8.  A grand  road,  still  finer,  I was  told,  by 

broad  wadies,  goes  from  Kades  to  Mount  Hor  [Jebel  Neby  Ha- 
roon]  (Mm.  20  : 22).  9.  The  nature  of  the  locality  itself  answers 

in  every  respect  to  the  description  given  of  it  in  Scripture,  or 
rather  inferred  from  it — the  mountains  to  the  east  of  Kades,  and 
some  very  grand  ones  to  the  south,  called  Jebel  Kades,  1 the  wil- 
derness of  Kadcsh/  the  Rock,  the  water,  and  the  grand  space  for 
encampment  which  lies  to  the  southwest  of  it,  a large  rectangular 
plain  about  nine  by  five,  or  ten  by  six  miles,  and  this  opening  to 
the  west  into  the  still  more  extensive  plain  of  Paran. 

But  enough  of  Kadesh.  I must  hasten  on  to  Suez,  without 
making  many  notes  or  comments  on  our  journey 


216 


KA  DESH-BA  BNEA , 


8.  THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 

There  was  quite  another  state  of  things  in  the  Kadesh-barnca 
discussion,  when  the  opinion  of  Robinson  and  the  discovery  of 
Rowlands  were  fairly  before  the  public.  The  advantage  to  begin 
with,  in  this  new  state  of  things,  was  largely  on  the  side  of  Robin- 
son. He  was  widely  known,  and  was  fittingly  recognized  as  pre- 
eminent in  his  sphere.  His  opinion  was  published,  and,  as  a mat- 
ter of  course,  was  generally  accepted,  before  the  report  of  Row- 
lands was  given  to  the  world.  Rowlands,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
no  such  commanding  position;  and  his  story  of  his  discovery, 
when  it  followed  Robinson’s  claim,  was  practically  hidden  in  an 
appendix  to  a work  which  was  itself  made  prominent  in  opposition  to 
Robinson  on  quite  another  matter  than  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea.1 
Had  the  case  rested  with  the  English-speaking  world  alone,  it 
seems  probable  that  the  discovery  of  Rowlands  would  have  been 
permanently  left  in  an  eddy  caused  by  the  resistless  sweep  of  Rob- 
inson’s great  reputation.  But  the  case  was  not  rested  there. 

However  the  English  and  American  public  might  be  carried 
along  by  the  opinion  of  one  leading  mind,  the  critical,  thorough, 
and  impartial  scholars  of  Germany  were  sure  to  weigh  carefully 
all  the  evidence  in  the  case  before  they  accepted  the  conclusions  of 
even  such  an  explorer  as  Robinson  on  a point  like  the  identifica- 
tion of  Kadesh-barnea.  The  first  uplifting  of  the  discovery  of 
Rowlands  into  anything  like  its  due  prominence,  was  by  Professor 
Tuch,  of  Leipzig,  an  eminent  biblical  student  and  Oriental  scholar. 
In  1847,  in  a careful  study  of  the  campaign  of  Kedor-la’omer, 
published  in  the  Journal  of  the  German  Oriental  Society,2  Tuch 
showed  conclusively  that  Ivadesh  must  have  been  located  in  the 

1 Williams  was  the  champion  of  the  traditional  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  as  over 
against  Robinson  on  the  other  side. 

2 Zeitschrift  des  deutschen  morgenlandischen  Gesellschaft,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  160  ff.,  169  ff. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


217 


very  region  where  Rowlands  had  found  ’Ayn  Qadees;  and  he  was 
confident  that  the  ancient  site  had  been  there  discovered.  Almost  at 
the  same  time,  Professor  Winer,  of  Leipzig,  a foremost  biblical  cyc- 
lopedist,  accepted  the  identification,  and  gave  it  a place  in  a new 
edition  of  his  Biblical  Cyclopedia. 1 Tuch’s  article  was  translated 
by  Professor  Samuel  Davidson,  a well-known  English  biblical 
scholar,  and  published  in  Kitto’s  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature.2  Just 
then,  also,  Dr.  John  Wilson,  an  Oriental  scholar  and  traveler,  de- 
clared against  Robinson’s  identification,  and  spoke  favorably  of  that 
of  Rowlands,  in  his  admirable  work  “ The  Lands  of  the  Bible.3” 
And  now,  the  site  ’Ayn  Qadees  had  such  backing  as  commanded  res- 
pect even  in  opposition  to  a site  approved  by  the  eminent  Robinson. 

It  was  in  response  to  these  German  critics  that  Robinson  came 
out  anew  in  defense  of  his  own  identification,  and  in  opposition  to 
that  proposed  by  Rowlands ; and  it  was  at  that  time  that  Robinson’s 
statements,  and  his  misstatements,  concerning  both  Rowlands  and 
his  discovery,  introduced  an  element  of  confusion  into  the  discus- 
sion of  the  Kadesh-barnea  question  which  has  continued  as  a cause 
of  perplexity  down  to  the  present  day,  and  which  it  is  one  object 
of  this  book  to  eliminate.  It  is,  in  fact,  hardly  to  be  wondered  at, 
that  the  judicial  faculty  of  a mind  like  Robinson’s  should  have 
been  disturbed  by  the  unexpected  evidence  of  his  error  in  so  im- 
portant an  identification  as  that  of  a pivotal  point  in  the  lower 
boundary  line  of  Palestine,  and  in  the  history  of  the  Israelitish 
wanderings,  coupled  with  the  claim  that  a comparatively  unknown 
traveler  had  penetrated  the  mountain  tract  which  Robinson  had 
not  been  able  to  explore,4  and  had  actually  discovered  there  the  an- 
cient site  of  Kadesh  with  its  still  existing  name.  How  could  such 
a state  of  facts  fail  of  prejudicing  the  chiefly-interested  party 
against  a rival  identification  ? 

1 Bib.  Realworterb.,  s.  v.  “ Kadesch.”  2 For  July,  1848. 

3Yol.  I.,  p.  338.  4 See  Bib.  Res.  I.,  186;  II.,  193,  note. 


218 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Robinson’s  new  defense  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  or  rather  his  criti- 
cisms upon  ’Ayn  Qadees  and  its  discoverer  (for  it  was  in  that  form 
that  his  comments  were  made),  appeared  first  in  an  article  in  the 
“ Bibliotheca  Sacra”  for  May,  1849,  and  again  in  foot-notes  to  the 
later  editions  of  his  “ Biblical  Researches.”1  Referring  to  the 
report  of  Rowlands,  Robinson  said,  in  his  magazine  article : 
“ Until  recently  it  has  seemed  to  me,  that  the  very  fanciful  and 
amusingly  credulous  character  of  the  whole  narrative  would  put 
every  one  upon  his  guard ; and  furnish  in  itself  the  best  exposition 
of  the  fallacy  of  the  whole  matter.  But  the  idea  has  since  been 
taken  up  by  Prof.  Tuch  of  Leipzig,  as  falling  in  with  a theory  of 
his  own  on  another  topic ; 3 and  his  article  has  been  translated  by 
Prof.  Davidson,  and  published  in  England.  Winer,  also,  in  the 
new  edition  of  his  ‘ Realworterbuch ’ (art.  ‘ Kadesh  ’)  adopts  the 
same  view,  relying  on  the  supposed  identity  of  the  name.  Hence 
it  has  become  worth  while  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  test  of  exam- 
ination.” 

And  first  “ the  test  of  examination  ” is  to  be  applied  to  the  dis- 
coverer, rather  than  to  the  discovery.  “ Mr.  Rowlands  appears  in  his 
writings,  and  is  described  by  those  who  know  him,”  says  Robin- 
son, “ as  a very  amiable  man  ; but  fanciful,  visionary,  and  full  of 
credulity.”  Then,  an  anonymous  letter  received  by  Robinson  is 
quoted,  a^  saying  of  Rowlands  and  his  report:  “His  letter  in 
Williams’  Appendix,  is  a tissue  of  moonshine.”  After  the  discov- 
erer, the  discovery  is  examined.  An  item  from  the  report  of 
Rowlands  is  quoted,  as  follows : “ The  water  of  Ivudes,  called 
’Ain  Kades,  lies  about  twelve  miles  (or  four  and  a half  hours  by 
camel)  to  the  E.  S.  E.  of  Moilahhi.”  On  this  Robinson  com- 

1 “ Notes  on  Biblical  Geography,”  pp.  377-381.  2 Vol.  I.,  p.  189 ; II.,  194. 

3 This  other  topic  on  which  Tuch  had  a theory,  was  the  location  of  Kadesh  in  the 
days  of  Kedor-la’omer.  Tuch  haying  shown  that  Kadesh  was  in  a certain  region  at 
that  period,  was  prepared  to  believe  that  it  might  have  remained  there,  even  until 

Rowlands  re-discovered  its  site. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


219 


ments  : u Where  then  is  this  Kudes  ? The  reader,  perhaps,  will 
be  surprised  to  learn  that  the  spot  here  pointed  out  is  men- 
tioned both  by  Seetzen  and  in  the  text  of  the  Biblical  Researches, 
and  is  inserted  on  our  map.  If  he  will  turn  to  the  map  he  will 
find  marked,  in  that  direction,  and  about  that  distance  from  el- 
Muweileh,  a fountain  called  ’ Ain  el-Kudeirdt ; it  is  a little  east  of 
our  route,  and  is  described  by  us  according  to  the  accounts  of  the 
Arabs.1  The  Kudeirdt  are  a tribe  or  clan  of  Arabs  in  this  region, 
who  water  their  flocks  at  this  fountain,  and  sometimes  as  far  north 
as  Beersheba.2  Seetzen  lodged  at  one  of  their  encampments.3  The 
conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the  name  Kudes  as  here  presented  by 
Mr.  Rowlands  is  a mere  blunder  of  a tyro  in  Arabic  for  el-Ku- 
deirdt.” 

A conclusion  drawn  by  Robinson  on  this  “ test  of  examination  ” 
is : “As  therefore  the  whole  hypothesis  of  a Kadesh  in  this  place 
rests  upon  the  supposed  identity  of  name ; and  the  said  name  is 
thus  shown  to  be  a mere  blunder ; it  might  perhaps  be  sufficient  to 
let  the  matter  rest  here.”  Yet  to  make  the  conclusion  surer,  as  he 
looks  at  it,  Robinson  presses  several  added  points  against  the  site 
of  “ ’Ain  el-Kudeirat  ” (which  he  has  decided  is  Rowlands’s  sup- 
posed “ Kudes,”)  prominent  among  which  points  is  the  following  : 
“ According  to  the  scriptural  account,  both  the  spies  and  the  Israel- 
ites on  entering  the  Promised  Land  from  Kadesh,  had  immediately 
to  ascend  a mountain.4  If  Kadesh  was  at  ’Ain  el-Weibeh  or  in 
the  vicinity,  all  this  is  a natural  and  exact  representation ; since 
the  ascent  from  the  great  valley  begins  immediately  back  of  that 
fountain.  But  if  Kadesh  be  sought  at  ’Ain  el-Kudeirat  or  any- 
where in  that  region,  the  language  of  Scripture  is  wholly  inappli- 
cable. The  tract  between  the  latter  spot  and  Beersheba  is  an  open 
rolling  country ; there  are  swells,  but  no  mountain,  to  be  crossed ; 

1 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  280.  a Bib.  Res.,  II.,  619.  3 Ritter,  Erdk.  XIV.,  p.  837  /. 

4 Num.  13 : 17 ; 14 : 44,  45  ; Deut.  1 : 24,  41. 


220 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


and  none  to  be  ascended  until  we  reach  the  mountains  of  Palestine 
proper  on  the  north  of  Beersheba  towards  Hebron ; a distance  from 
’Ain  el-Kudeirat  of  about  sixty  miles,  or  four  days’  march  for 
troops.” 

Now,  apart  from  the  personal  criticisms  of  Mr.  Rowlands  by 
Dr.  Robinson,  there  are  several  remarkable  statements  in  the 
exceptions  here  taken  to  the  report  of  the  former’s  discovery.  So 
far  from  having  confounded  “ Kudeirat”  with  “ Kudes,”  Rowlands 
distinctly  affirms  that  “ Kadeirat  and  Kaseimeh,  now,  and  perhaps 
always,  merely  fountains  or  springs,  lie  to  the  west  of  Kades”1  It 
is  but  fair  to  presume  that  Robinson  examined  his  own  “map” 
rather  than  the  report  of  Rowlands  while  bringing  the  latter  to 
“ the  test  of  examination.”  And,  inasmuch  as  Seetzen  had,  long 
before,  heard  the  name  “ Kdeis  ” in  this  region,  and  as  Rowlands 
had  been  prompted  to  this  very  search  by  hearing  that  a similar 
name  was  to  be  found  here,  it  would  hardly  be  fair  to  suppose  that 
the  name  itself  was  wholly  based  on  another  so  dissimilar  as 
Kudeirat,  even  if  the  positive  proof  to  the  contrary  were  not  in  the 
very  report  which  Robinson  was  criticising.  Moreover,  as  Row- 
lands gave  eight  distinct  reasons  for  the  identification,  in  addition 
to  the  correspondence  of  name,  and  noted  them  separately  with 
Arabic  numerals,  it  is  somewhat  surprising  to  learn  that  “the 
whole  hypothesis  of  a Kadesh  in  this  place  rests  upon  the  supposed 
identity  of  name.”  As  to  Robinson’s  supplemental  series  of  argu- 
ments against  the  site  of  “ Kades,”  as  they  chiefly  rest  on  his  mis- 
take of  supposing  that  Rowlands  had  “’Ain  el-Kudeirat”  in  mind, 
they  are  practically  irrelevant  to  the  case.2  Robinson  admits  that 
he  never  saw  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  but  merely  heard  about  it  from  the 
Arabs.  Whether  or  not,  therefore,  there  was  a mountain  just 
north  of  it  was  fairly  an  open  question ; and  again  it  would  have 

1 See  the  text  of  Rowlands’s  report,  at  page  215,  supra. 

2 Those  which  would,  otherwise,  have  any  weight,  have  been  forestalled  in  the 
earlier  geographical  studies  of  this  volume. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


221 


no  proper  bearing  on  this  discussion,  in  any  event,  as  it  was  not 
’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  that  was  proposed  as  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

This  being  the  substance  of  Robinson’s  magazine  article,  against 
Rowlands  as  a discoverer  and  against  the  site  discovered  by  Row- 
lands, its  misstatements  were  condensed  for  a reappearance  in  the 
notes  to  “ Biblical  Researches.”  Referring  to  “ ’Ain  el-Kudeirat,” 
Robinson  says  : 1 “ This  is  the  spot  called  by  Mr.  Rowlands,  Kudes 
and  visited  by  him  as  Kadesh-barnea.  He  obviously  made  out  the 
name  Kudes  by  misunderstanding  the  name  of  the  tribe  who  water 
at  this  fountain.  There  is  no  other  foundation  for  supposing  a 
Kadesh  here.”  And  again  : 2 u Mr.  Rowlands  supposes  that  he 
found  Kadesh  at  the  fountain  el-’ Ain  in  the  high  western  desert. 

. . . That  fountain  is  called  also  ’Ain  el-Kudeirat,  from  a tribe  of 
Arabs  who  water  there.3  Out  of  this  name  Mr.  Rowlands,  or  his 
Greek  dragoman,  seems  to  have  made  Kudes,  and  on  the  strength 
of  this  blunder,  assumed  there  the  site  of  Kadesh.”  Yet  when  we 
bring  these  notes  of  Robinson  u to  the  test  of  examination,”  by 
comparison  with  Mr.  Rowlands’s  original  report,  and  his  supple- 
mental statement,  we  find  that : 1.  It  was  not  his  dragoman  who 
led  him  into  the  blunder  of  confounding  “ Kudeirat”  with  “ Kudes.” 
2.  His  dragoman  was  not  a Greek.  3.  He  had  no  dragoman.  4.  He 
made  no  blunder,  on  the  point  in  question ; and  the  proof  that  he 
made  none  was  in  his  original  report,  which  was  overlooked  by 
Robinson  while  he  was  examining  his  own  map.  For  any  further 
u test  of  examination”  in  this  matter,  the  substantial  facts  are  now 
before  any  reader  who  would  decide  the  point  for  himself. 

Robinson’s  influence  was  sufficient  to  carry  along  with  him  a 
large  portion  of  the  English-speaking  people,  by  the  mere  fact  of 
his  opinion  rather  than  by  the  strength  of  his  argument.  If  he 

1 Bib.  j Res.  I.,  189,  note.  2 Ibid.  II.,  194,  note. 

3 It  is  more  probable  that  the  tribe  of  Arabs  takes  its  name  from  the  fountain. 

That  is  the  common  order  in  the  East. 


222 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


could  say  that  he  still  believed  in  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  why  should  an 
average  man  have  any  doubt  on  the  subject  ? But  German  scholars 
were  not  to  be  led  in  that  way.  They  asked  for  proofs  rather  than 
asseverations  on  a point  once  fairly  in  debate.  And  as  a result  of 
their  inquiry  and  investigation,  the  current  of  scholarly  testimony 
iu  favor  of  Rowlands’s  identification  gained  steadily  and  largely  in 
Germany ; nor  did  that  identification  lack  acceptance  and  support 
from  reputable  and  independent  scholars  in  England  and  America. 

Even  before  the  discovery  of  Rowlands  was  made  public,  other 
scholars,  including  Ewald,  and  Ritter,  and  Rabbi  Schwarz,1  had 
declared,  in  the  light  of  all  modern  research,  in  favor  of  a location 
of  Kadesh  at  a more  westerly  site  than  the  ’Arabah ; the  last  named 
of  these  scholars  having  proposed  an  identification  of  Kadesh-barnea 
at  a “ Wady  Gaian,”  or  “Wady  Abiat,”2  [Wady  Abyad]  connected 
with  Wady  Beerayn,  a little  to  the  northward  of  Wady  el-’ Ayn; 
although  he  was  disposed  also  to  understand  that  the  talmudic  refer- 
ence to  a double  Reqam  involved  the  acceptance  of  a second  Kadesh.3 

So  far  as  I can  see,  the  first  thorough  and  convincing  argument 
in  favor  of  Rowlands’s  site  was  made  by  Eries,  a German  scholar, 
in  an  article  “ On  the  Position  of  Kadesh/’  as  published  in  the 
German  critical  magazine  “Studien  und  Kritiken,”  in  1854.  His 
work  went  farther  than  that  of  Tuch,  in  showing  the  western 
stretch  of  Edom,  aud  in  a careful  treatment  of  the  Negeb ; more- 
over he  showed  the  insuperable  objections  to  a location  of  Kadesh 
in  the  ’Arabah.  Fries  was  followed  by  Kurtz  in  another  masterly 
exhibit  of  the  facts  and  arguments  in  this  discussion.  Indeed 
Kurtz  had  issued  the  first  edition  of  his  work,  the  “ History  of  the 
Old  Covenant/'  before  Fries’s  article  appeared;  but  in  subsequent 
editions  he  quoted  freely  from  Fries,  and  gave  him  unstinted  credit.4 

1  See  Kurtz’s  Hist  of  Old  Cov.  III.,  201. 

2  Descript.  Geog.  of  Pal.  (American  ed.)  pp.  23,  39. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  214/.  4 See  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  English  ed.  III.,  194-210. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


223 


It  would  even  seem  as  if  these  presentations  of  the  case  would 
alone  have  been  sufficient,  in  the  absence  of  farther  argument, 
to  have  convinced  any  impartial  student  who  should  examine 
them.  But  they  were  not  to  be  left  alone. 

Bitter,  in  his  new  edition  of  his  great  geographical  work,  spoke 
approvingly  of  Bowlands’s  proposed  identification ; 1 as  also  did 
Ewald  with  some  qualification.2  Keil  and  Delitzsch,3  Kalisch,4 
Knobel,5  Lange,6  Menke,7  V olter,8  Strauss,9  Hamburger,10  Arnold,11 
Volck  and  Muhlau,12  and  others  among  the  Germans,  accepted  it 
unqualifiedly,  or  referred  to  it  as  thus  accepted.  Bunsen,  also,  is 
cited  as  of  this  opinion.13  Graetz,14  while  evidently  misled  by  some 
of  Bobinson’s  misstatements  concerning  Bowlands  and  his  dis- 
covery, admitted  that  the  site  of  Kadesh  at  ?Ayn  Qadees,  was  veri- 
fied by  subsequent  research  and  argument.  Meanwhile  among 
English  scholars,  Wilton,15  Wordsworth,16  Alford,17  Palmer,18  Tris- 
tram,19 Edersheim,20  Geikie.21  and  others,  came  to  a similar  conclu- 
sion with  the  best  German  scholars,  by  an  independent  process  of 
reasoning,  or  adopted  the  conclusions  of  those  investigators.  The 
best  work  in  the  same  line  by  American  scholars  was  done  by 

1 Geog.  of  Pal.,  Am.  ed.,  I.,  429-433.  2 Hist,  of  Israel , Eng.  ed.,  II.,  193,  note. 

3  Bib.  Com.  at  Gen.  14:  7,  and  at  Num.  13:  11-16;  20:  14-21;  also  Keil’s  Com.  on 

Ezek.  at  47  : 19. 

4  Hist,  and  Crit.  Com.  on  O.  T.  at  Gen.  14 : 5-7. 

5  Exeget.  Handb.  at  Num.  33 : 36,  37,  and  at  Josh.  15 : 3, 4. 

6 Scliaff-Lange  Com.  at  Num.  20  : 1.  7 Bibelatlas,  Map  No.  III. 

8 Das  Heilige  Land,  p.  319.  9 Sinai  u.  Golgotha,  p.  123. 

10  Real-Encyc.  fur  Bibel  u.  Talm.,  s.  v.  “ Kades.” 

11  In  Herzog’s  Real-Encyc.  Art.  “ Kadesch.” 

12  See  their  Gesenius’s  Heb.  Germ.  Lex.,  eighth  ed.,  s.  v.  “ Kadesh.  “ Kadesh  is 

usually  located  at  the  spring  ’Ain  Kudes ; Robinson,  on  the  contrary,  misplaced  it  at 

the  ’Arabah.” 

13  See  Clark’s  Bible  Atlas,  p.  26.  14  Gesch.  d.  Juden.  I.,  396. 

15 See  The  Negeb  passim;  also  Fairbairn’s  Imp.  Bib.  Die.,  s.  v.  “ Kadesh.” 

16  Bible  with  Notes,  at  Gen.  14 : 5-7.  17  Genesis,  etc.,  at  14 : 5-7. 

18  Des.  of  Exod.  II.,  350-358 ; 509-520.  19  Bible  Places,  pp.  3-6. 

20  Exod.  and  Wand.  p.  165  /.  24  Hours  with  Bible,  II.,  327  f 


224 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


President  Bartlett/  of  Dartmouth  College,  and  Professor  Lowrie,2 
of  Allegheny. 

Had  it  not  been,  indeed,  that  the  followers  of  Robinson  on  this 
point,  in  England  and  America,  were  men  who  controlled  the 
avenues  to  popular  biblical  knowledge,  the  question  in  dispute 
would  have  long  ago  been  settled  beyond  the  possibility  of  a re- 
opening. Nor  would  even  this  advantage  have  availed  them,  if 
it  had  not  been  for  their  constant  repetition  of  Robinson’s  undis- 
puted misstatement  concerning  Rowlands’s  confusion  of  ’Ayn  el- 
Qadayrat  with  ’Ayn  Qadees ; a misstatement  which  a single  refer- 
ence by  any  one  of  them  to  the  original  report  of  Rowlands 
wrould  have  promptly  ruled  out  of  the  controversy. 

Even  so  valuable  a work  as  the  “ Speaker’s  Commentary”  has 
aided  in  promoting  popular  error  on  this  subject.  Its  comments 
on  the  Book  of  Numbers  were  primarily  prepared  by  the  Rev.  J. 
F.  Thrupp,  who  held  to  the  westerly  site  of  Kadesh ; but,  as  he 
died  before  his  work  was  completed,  his  notes  were  revised  by  the 
Rev.  T.  E.  Espin,  who  followed  Robinson  in  his  opinions  and  in 
his  errors,  and  changed  the  direction  of  the  comments  accordingly.3 
Espin’s  arguments  against  the  identification  at  ’Ayn  Qadees  in- 
clude the  utterly  baseless  idea  that  ’Ayn  Qadees  is  located  at  ’Ayn 
el-Qadayrat ; and  it  even  makes  the  topographical  blunder  of 
claiming  that  “ [Wady]  el- Ain  is  on  high  ground,”  and  that  “ from 
it  the  spies  must  have  gone  down  rather  than  up  towards  Hebron.”4 
The  baselessness  of  the  suggestion  that  Qadees  and  Qadayrat  were 
confounded  in  Rowlands’s  identification,  would  be  evident  to  any- 
one who  turned  for  himself  to  the  report  of  Rowlands ; and  the 
absurdity  of  the  claim  that  one  must  go  down  rather  than  up  in 
passing  from  either  Qadees  or  Qadayrat  towards  Hebron,  would  be 
seen  on  the  first  glance  at  a sectional  view  of  the  country,  such  as 

1 Egypt  to  Pal.,  pp.  356-378.  2 Schaff-Lange  Com.  at  Num.  13  : 26. 

3 See  Speaker’s  Com.,  “ Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,”  p.  654. 

4 Ibid.,  “ Note  on  Chap.  13  : 26. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


225 


is  given  in  Stanley’s  “ Sinai  and  Palestine/’  or  in  Clark’s  “ Bible 
Atlas;”  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  who  depended  on  the 
“ Speaker’s  Commentary  ” for  information  on  these  points,  would 
inevitably  be  led  astray,  and  so  be  prepared  to  accept  the  supple- 
mental commentator’s  opinion,  that  Kadesh  is  to  be  identified  with 
’Ayn  el-Waybeh. 

The  same  errors  that  deface  the  “ Speaker’s  Commentary  ” stand 
out  quite  as  prominently  in  the  widely-known  “ Bible  Atlas  ” of 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Clark,  above  referred  to.  This  geographical 
work  actually  declares1  that  the  fountain  discovered  by  Rowlands, 
and  proposed  by  him  as  the  site  of  Kadesh,  is  “ called  Ain  el- 
Kudeirat,”  and  on  the  strength  of  this  baseless  assumption  it 
argues  against  the  identification,  reiterating  the  absurd  topographical 
blunder,  “ that  the  road  from  the  Ain  el-Kudeirat  into  the  Holy 
Land  is  down  hill.”  Of  course  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Mr. 
Clark  had  either  referred  to  the  report  of  Rowlands  on  which  he 
was  commenting,  or  that  he  had  compared  his  own  statement  of 
the  down-grade  towards  Hebron  with  the  sectional  view  of  the 
desert  approach  of  the  Holy  Land  which  was  presented  in  his  own 
Atlas;2  but  this  reason  for  his  being  in  error  would  not  guard 
from  the  same  error  those  who  looked  to  him  for  direction  in  geo- 
graphical studies. 

Hr.  William  Smith’s  “ Ancient  Atlas,”  also  a popular  standard 
in  its  sphere,  approves  Robinson’s  identification,3  and  takes  excep- 
tion to  that  of  Rowlands,  although  in  his  maps  the  geographer 
notes,  as  possible  sites,  both  Robinson’s  and  Rowlands’s,  and  adds 
a third  one,  ’Ayn  esh-Shehabeh,  between  those  two  ; and  in  his 
“ Old  Testament  History,” 4 he  seems  to  favor  each  one  of  these 
three  sites  in  turn.  In  “ Smith’s  Bible  Dictionary,”  however, 
there  is  evidence  that  the  report  of  Rowlands  has  been  referred  to 

1 Bible  Atlas,  pp.  24-26.  3 Bible  Atlas,  Plate  II.,  Map  No.  4. 

3 In  notes  on  Map  39,  at  page  25.  4 Chap.  XIII.,  Note  “ B.” 

15 


226 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


by  the  writer  on  “ Kadesh.”1  Yet  the  preference  is  given  by  that 
writer  to  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  as  the  nearest  approximation  to  a pro- 
bable site  of  Kadesh  among  the  many  already  suggested.  An 
opinion  like  this,  however  poorly  supported,  in  such  an  avenue  of 
knowledge,  would  inevitably  have  more  influence  with  the  public 
generally,  than  a dozen  elaborate  essays  in  sources  of  critical 
study. 

Keith  Johnston’s  “ Royal  Atlas,”  also,  is  conformed  to  Robinson’s 
opinion.  And  what  has  proved  yet  more  misleading  than  the 
“ Bible  Atlas  ” and  the  “ Ancient  Atlas  ” and  the  “ Royal  Atlas  ” 
combined,  is  the  fact  that  Kadesh-barnea  is  located  at  ’Ayn  el- 
Waybeh  in  the  maps  of  the  Teachers’  Bibles,  of  the  Oxford  Uni- 
versity Press,  of  the  Bagsters,  and  of  the  Queen’s  Printers.  By 
this  means,  millions  of  young  Bible-students  have  been  started 
wrong  in  their  Bible  geography ; for  there  are  those  who  would  as 
soon  doubt  the  inspiration  of  the  chronology  of  the  Bible  margins, 
as  the  geography  of  the  Bible  maps. 

Porter,  who  has  the  popular  ear  through  his  editing  of  Murray’s 
“ Hand-book  for  Syria  and  Palestine,”  and  as  the  writer  of  the 
article  “ Kadesh”  in  Kitto’s  “ Cyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature,” 
follows  Robinson  in  the  claim  that  Rowlands  “was  evidently  mis- 
led . . by  a fancied  resemblance  in  names,”  in  his  discovery  of 

’Ayn  Qadees,  but  he  is  original  in  his  suggestion  that  the  site  of 
that  fountain  is  “in  the  midst  of  the  desert  of  Tih.” 2 His  opinion 
is  of  course  made  known  to  multitudes  who  are  unfamiliar  with 
the  results  of  modern  critical  and  geographical  research  in  the 
lands  of  the  Bible.  Fausset,  in  the  “ Englishman’s  Critical  and 
Expository  Bible  Cyclopedia  ” 3 adopts  Robinson’s  identification  of 
’Ayn  el- Way  bell,  and  also  his  misstatement  that  ’Ayn  Qadees  is  at 
Wady  el-’ Ayn.  Drew,  in  his  “ Scripture  Lands,” 4 and  Payne 

1 The  Rev.  Henry  Hayman.  2 Alexander’ s Kitto,  Art.  “ Kadesh.” 

3 Art.  “ Kadesh.”  4 pp.  75-78. 


THE  CONFUSION  OF  SITES. 


227 


Smith  in  “ The  Bible  Educator/’ 1 2 also  favor  Robinson’s  site/ 
while  Kitto’s  “ Scripture  Lands  ” 3 accommodatingly  approves  the 
identifications  of  both  Robinson  and  Rowlands ; going  back  to  the 
old-time  idea  of  a double  Kadesh,  which  was  so  thoroughly 
exploded  by  Lightfoot,  two  centuries  ago.  Yet  Kitto  had  earlier 
argued  sensibly  against  the  idea  of  a two-fold  site.4 

A mong  the  Germans,  V on  Gerlach 5 would  locate  Kadesh  in  the 
’Arabah,  as  would  Hitzig,6  who  hesitated  between  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh, 
and  ’Ayn  Hasb  (somewhat  farther  north)  as  advocated  by  Von 
Raumer.  Indeed  it'  ought  to  be  said  that  a number  of  Germans 
have,  earlier  or  later,  favored  the  location  of  Kadesh  at  some  point 
in  the  ’Arabah,  even  though  they  did  not  coincide  with  Robinson, 
in  fixing  it  at  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh.  Thus  Unruli7 *  favored  ’Ayn  Hasb ; 
Reuss/  and  Berghaus,9  would  find  a site  at  some  point  near  Ezion- 
geber,  where  Buddeus,10  a century  ago,  suggested  it ; and  Biissler 11 
named  Wady  Ghuwayr  for  the  location. 

El-Khaloos,  or  Elusa,  was  advocated  as  the  site  of  Kadesh  by 
an  over-positive  English  writer.12  Holland  inclined  to  some  site  at 
the  southeastern  point  of  Jebel  Muqrah;13  and  there  indeed  is 
’Ayn  esh-Shehabeh,  or  Shehabeeyeh,  a living  spring  which  has 
been  often  named  as  a possible  site  for  Kadesh,14  but  which  no  one 
seems  to  have  visited.15  Conder16  sweeps  all  along  the  upper 

1 Yol.  I.,  p.  231. 

2 Payne  Smith  does  not  name  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  but  his  description  corresponds  with 

its  site.  3 See  p.  81 ; also  “ General  Index,”  p.  56. 

4 See  citations  from  Kitto’s  Pictorial  Bible , and  his  earlier  editions  of  Bible  Cyclo- 
pedia, in  Bush’s  Notes  on  Numbers,  at  20 : 1. 

5 Com.  on  Pent,  at  Num.  13  : 26 ; 20  : 13.  6 Der  Prophet  Ezekiel,  p.  371. 

7 Der  Zug  der  Israel.,  p.  66.  8 L’ Histoire  Sainte,  III.,  264,  note. 

9 Special- Karte  von  Syrien.  10  Hist.  Eccles.,  A.  D.  1744. 

nDas  Heilige  Land,  p.  131.  12  H.  C.,  in  Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.  for  April,  1860,  p.  57. 

13  Report  of  Brit.  Assoc,  for  1878,  p.  622  ff. 

14  See  Clark’s  Bib.  Atlas , p.  25;  Smith’s  Anc.  Atlas , Map  39,  etc. 

15  See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  1.,  179. 

16  In  Quart.  Stat.  of  Pal.  Explor.  Fund  for  Jan.,  1881,  p.  60/. 


228 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


’Arabah  in  his  preferences  ; “ say  from  Petra  to  Tell  el-Milh,  at 
the  foot  of  Nukb  es-Sufa.”  He  strangely  suggests  a correspond- 
ence between  “ Maderah  ” and  “ Adar.” 

Of  Americans,  there  are  comparatively  few  who  have  made 
special  and  independent  studies  in  this  direction.  Bartlett  and 
Lowrie  have  been  already  named  as  approving  Rowlands’s  site. 
On  the  other  hand,  Bush,1  Coleman,2  Durbin,3  Barrows,4  and 
others,  followed  Robinson.  Olin5  suggested  Wady  Feqreh. 
McClintock  and  Strong 6 adopted  V on  Raumer’s  location  at  ’Ayn 
Hasb,  and  Abbott  and  Conant 7 did  the  same.  Crosby,8  expressed 
his  belief  that  Kadesh  was  to  be  found  at  some  point  near  Jebel 
Muqrah ; and  this  is  practically  the  view  of  Holland.  Naturally, 
however,  the  opinion  of  Robinson  carried  great  weight  with  his 
countrymen,  especially  in  the  absence  of  any  personal  knowledge 
on  their  part. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  follow  out  farther  or  more  closely  than 
this,  the  various  suggested  identifications  of  Kadesh  ; or  to  multi- 
ply farther  the  names  of  those  who  have  had  a part  in  discussing 
the  subject,  or  in  influencing  public  opinion  by  a recorded  vote  in 
favor  of  one  site  or  another.  Yet  the  list  would  not  be  even  fairly 
complete,  without  a mention  of  the  noteworthy  and  remarkable 
proposal  of  Dean  Stanley,  to  find  the  site  of  Kadesh  in  the  Rock- 
City,  Petra  itself.9  It  is  quite  needless  to  detail  his  nominal  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  his  suggestion  ; for  it  was  rather  the  poetry  of  the 
idea  than  any  cold  reasoning  on  the  subject  that  led  him  to  carry 
the  host  of  Israel  directly  into  the  stronghold  of  Edom  and  the 
sacred  fortress  of  Mount  Seir.  In  view  of  all  that  he  has  to  say 
of  the  matter,  the  only  wonder  is  that  he  will  concede  that  the 

1 Notes  on  Numbers,  at  20 : 14.  2 Hist.  Geog.  of  Bible,  p.  109. 

3 Observ.  in  East,  I.,  197.  4 Sacred  Geog.  and  Antiq.,  p.  253. 

5 Travels,  II.,  60.  6 Cyclo.  of  Bib.,  Theol.,  Eccles.  IAt.,  s.  v.  “Kadesh.” 

* Did.  of  Relig.  Knowl.,  s.  v.  “ Kadesh.”  8 Notes  on  Joshua,  p.  146. 

9 Sinai  and  Pal.  pp.  92-98. 


FAILURES  TO  RE- FIND  ROWLANDS' S SITE. 


229 


“ present  ruins  are  modern,”  instead  of  boldly  claiming  that  the 
great  theatre  itself  was  built  expressly  for  the  funeral  services  on 
the  occasion  of  the  death  of  Aaron. 

9.  FAILURES  TO  RE-FIND  ROWLANDS’S  SITE. 

In  addition  to  the  confusion  of  sites  by  this  suggestion  of  more 
than  a dozen  distinct  identifications  of  Kadesh-barnea,  and  by  the 
statements  and  misstatements,  in  direct  conflict,  of  “ authorities  ” 
without  number, — a new  element  of  confusion  and  of  doubt  was 
introduced  by  the  repeated  failures  of  explorers  to  find  the  locality 
visited  and  described  by  Rowlands,  even  with  the  help  of  all  the 
landmarks  noted  by  him.  It  was  not  so  much  to  be  wondered  at 
that  7Ayn  Qadees  had  been  passed  by  without  discovery  in  all  the 
years  before  attention  was  called  to  it  specifically ; but  it  did  come 
to  be  a cause  for  wonder  that,  after  its  location  was  fairly  de- 
scribed, it  was  not  to  be  found  or  heard  from  again. 

As  has  been  already  mentioned,  the  direct  route  northward  from 
Castle  Nakhl  to  Hebron  was  taken  but  rarely  by  desert  travelers. 
But  even  when  it  was  taken,  now  as  before,  it  seemed  to  throw 
little  or  no  light  on  the  site  which  Rowlands  uplifted  into  such 
pre-eminence.  His  own  report  of  it  was  given  in  a hurried  per- 
sonal letter ; and  the  many  questions  asked  about  points  not 
touched  in  his  description  were  not  replied  to  by  him  in  any  formal 
statement.  Hence  one  and  another  European  or  American  traveler 
made  the  determined  attempt  to  learn  more  on  the  subject  by  per- 
sonal research ; but  all  to  little  purpose. 

Dr.  Stewart,  an  English  clergyman,  passing  over  the  mid-desert 
route,  in  1853,  somewhat  westward  of  Seetzen’s  course,  pressed  his 
Teeyahah  guides  for  information  as  to  the  locality  described  by 
Rowlands;  according  to  his  mistaken  understanding  of  it.1  There- 


Tent  and  Khan , p.  189  /. 


230 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


upon,  they  coolly  informed  him  that  the  well  in  question,  which  he 
reports  as  “Ain  el-Khades,”  was  “near  the  top  of  the  western 
shoulder  of  the  mountain,”  Jebel  Helal;  and  that  while  “no 
camels  could  approach  it  ...  a man  with  a water-skin  slung  on 
his  back,  could  get  at  it  by  climbing  with  his  hands  and  feet.” 
This  “chaffing”  of  the  Arabs,  Stewart  actually  took  for  solid  topo- 
graphical knowledge,  and  on  the  strength  of  its  possession  he  pro- 
ceeded to  criticise  and  correct  the  statements  of  his  more  successful 
fellow-countrymen.  “This  differs  very  widely  from  the  glowing 
description  given  of  it  [the  mountain-top  spring]  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Rowlands,  in  a letter  which  appears  in  the  appendix  of  his  friend, 
Mr.  Williams’,  book ; though  it  is  probable  they  can  be  reconciled 
by  supposing  the  stream,  by  which  he  encamped,  to  come  down 
from  the  spring  near  the  summit.”  And,  on  the  strength  of  this 
story  from  the  Arabs,  Stewart  entered  “’Ain  Khades,”  accordingly, 
on  the  map  accompanying  his  really  valuable  book  of  travels. 

Again  Dr.  William  M.  Thomson,  the  veteran  and  widely- 
known  American  missionary,  after  a quarter  of  a century’s  resi- 
dence in  the  East,  reported 1 of  his  search  within  a few  miles  of  the 
locality  pointed  out  by  Rowlands:  “I  made  diligent  inquiries 
about  Kadesh;  but  both  our  own  Arabs  and  other  Bedawin  we 
met  in  the  neighborhood  were  either  absolutely  ignorant  of  such  a 
place,  under  any  possible  pronunciation  of  the  name,  or  they  pur- 
posely concealed  their  knowledge  of  it.”  He  knew  enough  of  the 
Arabs,  however,  to  understand  that  seeming  ignorance  might 
really  be  studied  concealment ; and  he  indulged  in  no  sneers  at 
the  claims  of  Rowlands  to  have  seen  that  which  a subsequent 
traveler  was  unable  to  re-discover. 

Abeken,  a German  explorer,  who  was  a companion  of  Lepsius 
in  the  latter’s  expedition  to  Egypt  (1842-1846),  made  a journey 
at  a later  date,  along  this  region;  and  a “Jebel  el-Kudeis”  is  re- 


1 South.  Pal.  (Land  and  Book,)  p.  200. 


FAILURES  TO  RE-FIND  ROWLANDS' S SITE. 


231 


ported,  as  on  his  authority,  in  a position  corresponding  with  the 
“Wadi  el-Kdeis”  of  Seetzen.1  But  this  was  not  the  ’Ayn  Qadees 
of  Rowlands;  and  there  were  even  those  who  would  frame  an 
argument  against  the  identification  of  Kadesh  at  Qadees,  on  the 
strength  of  this  proof  of  another  locality  in  the  same  region  bear- 
ing this  correspondent  name. 

At  length,  after  nearly  thirty  years  from  the  discovery  by  Row- 
lands, Palmer,  the  English  Oriental  scholar,  who  had  already 
made  his  important  explorations  of  the  lower  peninsula,  and  who 
had  evidenced  rare  ability  in  influencing  and  controlling  the 
Arabs,  went  out  for  the  express  purpose  of  exploring  the  Negeb 
and  the  desert  immediately  below  it.2  In  this  undertaking,  he 
had  in  mind  the  re-discovery  of  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  as  one 
of  the  more  important  results  of  his  researches ; and,  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  believed  that  Rowlands  had  correctly  reported  his 
discovery,  there  was  little  doubt  that  Palmer  would  now  make  this 
truth  clear  beyond  a question.  But  even  he  was  unable  to  find  any 
such  site  as  Rowlands  had  described,  or  to  learn  directly  about  it,3 
and,  although  he  was  convinced  that  in  that  region  was  the  locality 
of  Kadesh-barnea,  and  made  a convincing  argument  in  its  favor, 
he  came  at  last  to  believe  that  Robinson’s  gratuitous  misstatement 
concerning  Rowlands’s  confounding  of  Qadayrat  and  Qadees 
must  have  been  the  truth  in  the  case;  and  he  accordingly  put 
himself  on  record  as  supposing  that  Rowlands  “ applied  the  name 
[‘  ’Ain  Gadis,’  as  Palmer  writes  it]  wrongly  to  ’Ain  el  Gudeirat, 

1 Abelcen’s  reports  seem  to  have  been  made  through  the  pages  of  the  Berlin 
Monatsbericht  der  Gesellschaft  fur  Erdkunden;  but  I do  not  find  there  a record  of  the 
journey  on  which  this  discovery  was  reported.  The  mountain  is,  however,  laid  down 
as  by  his  authority  on  Kiepert’s  map  in  Murray’s  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Pal.,  and 
is  referred  to  in  Smith-Hackett  Bib.  Die.,  Art.  “Kadesh,”  note  at  p.  1522. 

2 See  his  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  283. 

3 On  this  point  I had  the  personal  assurance  of  Professor  Palmer,  in  a conference 
with  him,  on  my  return  from  the  East,  in  the  spring  of  1881.  It  is  also  made  clear 
by  Besant,  in  his  Life  of  Palmer  (p.  101  /.) 


232 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


some  miles  farther  northward.” 1 The  “ three  springs,  or  rather 
shallow  pools,  called  themail  [‘  cistern-dregs’]  by  the  Arabs,”  which 
Palmer  thought  were  the  real  ’Ayn  Qadees,  were  certainly  not  the 
springs  described  by  Rowlands,  nor  anything  like  them.  As  a 
reason  for  this  failure  of  Palmer  to  find  the  site  which  Rowlands 
had  discovered,  his  accompanying  shaykh,  the  wily  Sulayman, 
afterwards  asserted  that  he  had  purposely  held  back  the  dis- 
tinguished explorer  from  a sight  of  the  long-sought  wells.2 

Palmer  was  followed,  in  1874,  by  President  Bartlett,  an  Ameri- 
can scholar,  who  was  equally  intent  on  ascertaining  fche  truth  con- 
cerning the  discovery  of  Rowlands,  and  equally  unsuccessful.  He 
also  had  the  crafty  Shaykh  Sulayman  as  his  escort,  who,  under  the 
pressure  of  strong  urging,  conducted  Bartlett  to  a locality  which 
he  said  bore  the  name  asked  for.  It  was  subsequently  proved  that 
the  place  thus  shown  to  Bartlett  was  ’Ayn  Qasaymeh,3  one  of  the 
two  sites  named  by  Rowlands  as  westward  of  ’Ayn  Qadees.  Even 
at  the  time,  Bartlett  was  compelled  to  say  of  it : “ It  will  be  seen 
that  this  locality  does  not  conform  to  Rowlands’s  specification  ;” 
but  he  was  now  prepared  to  believe  that  Rowlands’s  “ narrative 
shows  looseness  of  statement,  both  in  description  of  places  and  in 
estimates  of  distances;”4  and  to  declare  that  “ we  may  at  once 
recognize  the  description  of  Mr.  Rowlands  as  somewhat  overdrawn, 
his  location  confused,  and  his  confidence  excessive.”5  Moreover, 
Bartlett  brought  a new  element  of  confusion  into  the  discussion  by 
insisting  that  there  was  really  no  such  fountain  as  ’Ayn  el-Qaday- 
rat  in  Wady  el-’Ayn  ; nor  indeed  a fountain  of  any  sort ; that,  in 
fact,  the  fountain  which  both  Robinson  and  Palmer,  (and  a host 
of  commentators  and  geographers  between  them,)  had  declared  was 
mistaken  by  Rowlands  for  ’Ayn  Qadees  did  not  have  an  existence, 
and  therefore  could  never  have  been  misnamed  by  Rowlands’s  Greek 

1 Des.  of  Exod II.,  350.  2 See  Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  359. 

3 As  will  be  shown  farther  on.  4 Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  361.  5 Ibid.,  p.  367. 


FAILURES  TO  RE- FIND  ROWLANDS’ S SITE. 


233 


dragoman,  even  if  Rowlands  had  had  a dragoman,  and  that 
dragoman  had  happened  to  be  a Greek.1  Bartlett  said  in  defence 
of  this  opinion,  that  neither  Palmer  nor  Robinson,  nor  indeed 
Rowlands  or  any  traveler  before  or  after  him,  claimed  to  have  seen 
this  fountain  ;2  while  he  had  searched  the  wady  thoroughly,  and 
could  <e  speak  with  some  confidence  on  the  subject.”  In  view  of 
all  that  had  gone  before,  this  unexpected  result  of  the  researches 
of  so  intelligent  a traveler  as  Bartlett,  raised  anew  the  perplexing 
questions  : Are  there  really  three  distinct  fountains  in  that  region  : 
’Ayn  Qadees,  ?Ayn  Qadayrat,  and  ’Ayn  Qasaymeh?  or,  are  there 
only  two ; and  if  two,  which  two  ? or  is  there  indeed  but  one  ? 
And  so  instead  of  new  light,  there  seemed  only  added  shadows  on 
the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  through  added  research. 

Three  years  after  this  visit  of  Bartlett  to  the  region  in  question, 
another  eminent  American  scholar,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff, 
crossed  the  desert  northward  with  a party  of  friends,  and  vainly 
attempted  to  go  over  this  route  from  Castle  Nakhl  to  Hebron.  Of 
his  meeting  with  the  Teeyahah  Arabs  at  their  mid-desert  starting- 
point,  he  said:3  “The  sheikh,  a commanding-looking  man,  di- 
verted us  from  our  intended  route  to  Beersheba  and  Hebron 
(although  we  were  willing  to  run  the  risk  of  danger).” 

A year  after  Dr.  Schaff  was  thus  turned  aside  from  his  purpose, 
the  Rev.  F.  W.  Holland,  of  England,  already  referred  to  as  having 
no  peer  in  his  experience  as  an  explorer  of  the  Sinaitic  desert,4 
made  his  fifth  visit  to  that  region,  having  it  as  one  of  the  prime 
objects  of  his  journey  to  settle  the  question  of  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea.  If  he  could  not  succeed  in  finding  the  place  so  many 
times  vainly  hunted  for,  who  could  hope  to  do  so?  Yet  even  he 

1 See  page  221,  supra. 

2 He  did  not  refer  to  Seetzen,  who  mentions  the  surroundings  of  the  fountain  as  if 
he  had  seen  it  ( Reisen , III.,  47) ; yet  even  Seetzen  does  not  directly  say  that  he  vis- 
ited the  place. 

3 Through  Bible  Lands , p.  202. 


4 See  page  77,  supra. 


234 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


was  induced  to  return  without  penetrating  to  the  site  described  by 
Rowlands ; being  deterred  by  “ the  disturbed  state  of  the  country, 
owing  to  constant  raids  of  the  Arabs  from  the  east  of  the  ’Arabah ; 
and  [by]  the  excessive  drought.”  1 

There  was  certainly  little  encouragement,  in  the  experience  of 
these  travelers,  to  new  endeavor  in  the  same  direction.  Yet  all 
these  failures  increased  the  obvious  desirableness  of  farther  and 
decisive  information  on  the  subject,  from  some  clearly  independent 
source.  And  this  was  the  state  of  things  at  the  opening  of  the 
year  1881. 

1 Jour,  of  Trans,  of  Viet.  Inst.,  Yol.  XIV.,  p.  11. 


Y. 

KAJDE  S H-BAENEA : 


STORY  OF  A HUNT  FOR  IT. 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


1.  ITS  ARAB  GUARDIANS. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  important  to  know  something  of  the 
hindrances  to  a hunt  in  the  region  where  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  must  be  looked  for. 

That  region  is  the  territory  of  the  Bed'ween  ; of  the  men  of  the 
desert.  The  Semitic  Bed'ween,  although  of  many  diverse  tribes, 
are  essentially  one  people  j1  and  in  no  particular  is  their  race-unity 
more  apparent  than  in  their  unvarying  recognition  of  their  tribal- 
diversity.  As  a people,  they  are  agreed  that  as  tribes  they  are  not 
agreed.  Each  tribe,  or  confederacy  of  tribes,  stands  firm  as  a 
representative  of  their  common  father  Ishmael,  of  whom  it  was  pro- 
phesied before  his  birth  : “ He  will  be  a wild  man ; his  hand  will 
be  against  every  man,  and  every  man's  hand  against  him." 2 The 
solidarity  of  the  tribe,  and  the  separateness  of  the  tribes,  are  facts 
held  with  like  religious  zeal  among  all  the  Ishmaelitish  Bed'ween. 
And  all  are  as  one,  in  counting  sacredly  permanent  the  “ ancient 

1 “The  Bedawin,  whose  name  is  the  plural  of  the  word  Bedawi  (man  of  the 
desert),  although  divided  into  independent  tribes,  which  are  often  hostile  one  to 
another,  may  be  regarded  as  a single  nation,  united  by  a common  speech.  ...  In 
every  age,  the  nomads,  led  by  the  chiefs  of  their  families  (sheikhs)  have  pitched 
their  tents  on  every  spot  from  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  to  those  of  the  Nile,  from 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  to  those  of  the  Persian  Gulf.”  (Pierotti’s  Customs 
and  Traditions  of  Palestine,  p.  200/.) 

2 Gen.  16  : 12. 


237 


238 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


landmark  ”*  which  designates  the  boundary  line  between  the  terri- 
torial possessions,  or  roaming  places,  of  tribes  which  are  not  as  one. 

To  see  one  tribe  of  Bed'ween  is  to  see  a specimen  of  all  tribes ; 
but  to  be  with  one  tribe  is,  in  a peculiar  sense,  to  be  apart  from  all 
other  tribes.  You  can  move  at  will  within  the  domain  of  the 
tribe  of  which  you  are,  for  the  time  being,  a member ; but  the 
bounds  of  that  domain  you  can  pass  only  at  your  peril.  For 
example,  Laborde  tells  of  a rock  at  the  upper  end  of  the  Gulf  of 
’Aqabah  on  which  every  Muhammadan  throws  a stone  in  passing, 
in  imitation  of  Abraham  who  there  threw  stones  at  Satan,  when  the 
latter  would  have  turned  him  from  the  path  of  duty.  “ The  rock 
just  mentioned/’  says  Laborde,  “ serves  as  a line  of  demarcation 
between  the  Bedouin  of  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  all  the  Arabs 
of  the  north.  The  moment  we  passed  this  frontier,  the  protection 
of  our  guides  was  of  no  use,  except  in  so  far  as  they  might  assist 
personally  in  defending  us ; and  they  depended  much  more  upon 
our  guns  and  pistols  for  the  safety  of  their  dromedaries  than  upon 
their  own  prowess.”2 

A recognition  of  these  immutable  facts  of  Bed'ween  life  is  essen- 
tial to  an  understanding  of  the  barriers  and  limitations  to  research 
in  the  land  of  the  Bed'ween. 

The  lower  peninsula  of  Sinai  is  controlled  by  the  Tawarah 
Bed'ween,  including  several  tribes  or  clans,  associated  or  confeder- 
ated under  one  head  shaykh  ; the  Shaykh  el-Belad,  or  Shaykh  of 
the  Territory.  Their  common  tribal  name  is  derived  from  Tur,  or 
Toor,  a word  signifying  mountain,  and  applied  to  the  Sinaitic 
mountain  group.  They  are  sometimes  known  as  Beny  et-Toor, 
Sons  of  the  Mountain  ; although  this  designation  is  given  to  them 
by  outsiders,  they  calling  themselves  by  their  separate  tribal  names.3 

1  Deut.  19  : 14;  Prov.  22 : 28. 

2  Laborde’s  Journey , p.  95.  See,  also,  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.  I.,  162. 

3  For  descriptions  of  the  Bed'ween  of  the  Peninsula,  and  their  tribal  lines,  see 
Thevenot’s  Reisen,  pp.  234-237;  Shaw’s  Travels,  I.,  220-257;  Burckhardt’s  Travels 


ITS  ARAB  GUARDIANS . 


239 


The  Tawarah  are  a kindly-disposed  and  trustworthy  people ; the 
most  so  of  all  the  Arabian  Bed'ween.  They  have  more  to  do  with 
civilized  travelers  than  any  of  their  neighbors  ; for  they  are  imme- 
diately responsible  for  all  the  carrying  trade — the  escort  of  cara- 
vans and  the  guidance  of  pilgrims  and  tourists — between  Suez  and 
Sinai,  and  northward  from  Sinai  to  the  great  Hajj  route  from 
Cairo  to  Mekkeh,  which  crosses  the  desert  from  west  to  east. 
Their  gentleness  and  fidelity  so  attach  to  them  the  travelers  whom 
they  guide,  that  almost  always  they  are  parted  from  with  regret, 
and  remembered  and  referred  to  affectionately.1 

North  of  the  Tawarah,  in  the  central  desert,  are  the  Teeyahah 
Bed'ween,  comprising  several  clans,  who  again  have  their  collective 
popular  name  from  the  region  they  inhabit — the  Desert  of  Et-Teeh, 
or  Desert  of  the  Wanderings.  East  of  the  Teeyahah,  toward  the 
Gulf  of  ’Aqabah,  are  the  Haywat ; 2 and  northeast  of  the  Haywat 

in  Syria,  pp.  557-564;  his  Beduinen  u.  Wahaby,  passim;  Laborde’s  Voyage  de 
l’ Arabie  Petree,  pp.  52,  71/. ; Riippell’s  Reisen,  chap.  22;  Robinson’s  Bib . Res., 
I.,  63  133-138,  165  /.,  186;  Ritter’s  Geog.  of  Pal.,  I.,  377-413;  Palmer’s  Des.  of 

Exod.,  II.,  293-300. 

For  other  descriptions  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Bed' ween  of  the  East,  see  Cin- 
der's Tent  Work  in  Pal.,  II.,  270-292;  Bedouins  of  Euphrates,  passim;  Merrill’s 
East  of  Jordan,  pp.  467-515;  McCoan’s  Egypt  As  It  Is,  pp.  26-28;  Klunzinger’s 
Upper  Egypt,  pp.  248-267;  Pierotti’s  Customs  and  Trad,  of  Pal.,  pp.  200-207;  Yon 
Maltzan’s  Reisen  in  Arabien,  I.,  193-403. 

1For  illustrations  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Tawarah  in  contrast  with  other 
Bed' ween,  and  of  the  tribal  jealousies  in  the  matter  of  convoying  travelers,  see 
Burckhardt,  Laborde,  Robinson,  Ritter,  and  Palmer,  as  above  referred  to;  also 
Fazakerley’s  “Journey,’’  in  Walpole’s  Travels  in  the  East,  p.  385,  391;  Lord  Lind- 
say’s Letters,  II.,  163 ; Stephens’s  Incidents,  II.,  31 ; Formby’s  Visit  to  East,  pp.  254- 
256 ; Miss  Martineau’s  Eastern  Life,  p.  343 ; Olin’s  Travels,  I.,  378 ; Bartlett’s  Forty 
Days  in  Desert,  p.  163;  Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan,  p.  12;  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I., 
270  /.;  Bonar’s  Desert  of  Sinai,  p.  273/.;  Caroline  Paine’s  Tent  and  Harem,  pp. 
252-264 ; Strauss’s  Sinai  u.  Golgatha,  pp.  113-121 ; Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Palestine,  p. 
329;  Schaff’s  Through  Bible  Lands,  p.  137;  Field’s  On  the  Desert,  pp.  223-228. 

2 Dr.  Wilson  ( Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  265)  locates  the  Haywat,  or  Heiw&t,  south  of  the 
Teey&hah,  between  the  Hajj  route  and  Jebel  et-Teeh;  but  Burckhardt,  Robinson, 
Ritter,  and  Palmer,  locate  them  as  above. 


240 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


are  the  Hawaytat  and  the  ’Alaween ; west  and  northwest  of  the 
Tawarah,  toward  Suez  and  Gaza,  are  the  Terabeen.  The  three 
tribes,  of  the  Teeyahah,  the  Haywat,  and  the  Terabeen,  are  in 
close  alliance,  and  are  even  thought  by  some  to  be  of  a common 
recent  stock.1  Together  they  outnumber  any  tribe  or  confederacy 
of  tribes  in  the  desert.  From  their  central  position,  the  Teeyahah 
claim  the  right  to  escort,  within  their  borders,  all  travelers  who 
cross  the  desert  in  any  direction,  including  the  great  Hajj,  or 
annual  sacred  pilgrimage  from  Cairo  to  Mekkeh  and  back  again. 
The  Khedive,  in  his  best  estate,  has  been  compelled  to  pay  them 
liberally  for  this  escort ; and  if  they  had  been  on  the  desert  in  the 
days  of  Abraham,  Kedor-la’omer  would  have  had  a lively  time 
trying  to  cross  it  without  recognizing  their  claim. 

The  Teeyahah  are  ruder  and  less  trustworthy  than  the  Tawarah. 
It  was  pithily  said  of  them  by  Palmer,2  that  while  “ the  ancient 
Arabs  prided  themselves  on  three  things,  eloquence,  hospitality, 
and  plundering ; from  the  Teyaheh  tribe  the  first  two  have  en- 
tirely disappeared,  but  they  are  still  unrivalled  ” in  the  third. 

All  by  themselves,  in  the  mountains  bearing  their  name,3  north 
of  the  region  of  the  Teeyahah  and  the  Haywat,  are  the  ’Azazimeh 
Bed'ween,  “ one  of  the  poorest  and  most  degraded  of  Arab  tribes  ” 
— the  most  Ishmaelitish  of  Ishmaelites.  According  to  Palmer’s 
testimony,4  “ they  are  superstitious,  violent,  and  jealous  of  intrusion 
upon  their  domain,  suspecting  all  strangers  of  sinister  designs 
upon  their  lives  and  property.” 5 Of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 


1 Burckhardt  ( Travels  in  Syria,  p.  560)  speaks  of  these  three  tribes,  together  with 
the  Tawarah,  as  “ all  derived  from  one  common  stock,  the  ancient  tribe  of  Beni 
Attye.”  Is  it  possible  that  he  was  misled  by  the  term  Beny  et-Teeh,  “ Sons  of  the 
[Desert  of  the]  Wanderings  ? ” He  evidently  does  not  mean  “ ’Ateeyeh.” 

2 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  294/.  3 See  page  70/,  supra.  4Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  291/. 

5 Laborde  ( Journey , p.  283,  note)  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  that  this  jealous  suspi- 
cion of  visitors  from  without,  has  been,  from  of  old,  a characteristic  of  the  tribes  bor- 

dering on  the  Holy  Land ; as  illustrated  by  the  warning  given  by  the  princes  of 

Ammon  to  their  king  against  the  kindly  messengers  of  David : “Are  not  his  servants 


ITS  ARAB  GUARDIANS. 


241 


any  research  into  their  territory,  he  adds,  out  of  his  own  experi- 
ence : “ To  examine  the  country  and  wrest  from  them  the  secrets 
of  its  topography  and  nomenclature,  when  the  use  of  a prismatic 
compass  exposes  you  to  execration  as  a sorcerer,  and  when  to  ask 
the  simplest  question  is  to  proclaim  yourself  a spy,  is,  as  our  own 
experience  has  taught  us,  neither  an  easy  nor  an  agreeable  task.” 

Not  only  are  the  ’Azazimeh  unwilling  to  make  any  terms  with 
“ Christians  ” — as  they  call  all  Europeans  or  Americans ; but  they 
are  watchfully  suspicious  of  their  Teeyahch  neighbors,  when  the 
latter  are  escorting  travelers  along  their  territory,  and  they  protest 
against  any  freedom  being  allowed  to  the  hated  class,  in  the  line 
of  archeological  researches.1 

’Ayn  Qadees,  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  is  in  the  heart  of  the 
’Azazimeh  territory.  The  ’Azazimeh  themselves  will  not  guide 
travelers  to  it ; nor  will  they  give  consent  to  the  Teeyahah  to  do 
so.  Hence,  although  it  is  but  a little  distance  east  of  the  direct 
route  from  Sinai  to  Hebron,  it  has,  for  generations,  been  practi- 
cally inaccessible  to  travelers.  The  ordinary  Teeyahah  guides 
could  not  escort  travelers  thither : the  superstitious  ’Azazimeh 
would  not.  And,  in  this  state  of  things,  the  Teeyahah  have 
doubtless  been  reluctant  to  admit  to  travelers  that  they  knew  of  a 
place  so  near  their  route,  while  they  were  unable  to  go  to  it. 
Therefore  it  is,  that  there  came  to  be  doubts  of  its  very  existence, 
during  the  nearly  forty  years  in  which  intelligent  and  persistent 
explorers  from  Europe  and  America  failed  either  to  find  it  or  to 
gain  any  information  concerning  it,  as  they  journeyed  in  its  region, 
after  it  was  first  lighted  on  in  modern  times  by  the  adventurous 
and  zealous  Mr.  Rowlands,  of  England. 

Rowlands,  indeed,  was  peculiarly  favored  in  having  Terabeen 
guides,  from  Gaza,  as  he  went  in  search  of  the  long-sought  site. 

come  unto  thee  for  to  search,  and  to  overthrow,  and  to  spy  out  the  land  ? ” (1  Chron. 
19:  3). 

1 See,  e.  g.}  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod II.,  370  /. ; 403,  407  /. 

16 


242 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


The  Terabeen  are  the  only  Arabs  who  seem  on  good  terms  with 
all  the  other  tribes  alike.  Their  immediate  territory  stretches 
from  below  Suez  to  Gaza.  They  are  in  close  confederation  with 
the  ruder  Teeyahah,1  in  fact  they  are  by  some  counted  as  a portion 
of  that  tribe.  Moreover  they  are  more  than  friendly  to  the  gentle 
Tawarah.  As  Robinson’s  guide  “ Tuweileb  ” said,  “ Between  the 
Tawarah  and  the  Terabin,  there  is  an  oath  of  friendship,  to  endure 
‘ as  long  as  there  is  water  in  the  sea,  and  no  hair  grows  in  the  palm 
of  the  hand.’  ” 2 And  what  is  still  stranger,  these  kindly- disposed 
Terabeen  are  on  excellent  terms  with  the  jealous,  superstitious,  and 
quarrelsome  ’Azazimeh,  “ and  sometimes  pasture  within  their 
territory,”  3 even  while  the  ’Azazimeh  and  Teeyahah  are  at  feud  with 
one  another.  Thus  the  Terabeen  are  in  a peculiar  sense  a resolv- 
ing element  in  the  disturbing  forces  of  the  desert  peoples ; and  it 
was  through  their  guidance  that  Rowlands  was  enabled  to  reach 
the  jealously-guarded  fountain  of  Qadees  within  the  territory  of 
the  ’Azazimeh.  But  when  he  came  out  from  that  sacred  enclosure, 
it  seemed  as  if  its  entrance  were  not  only  immediately  closed  be- 
hind him,  but  actually  lost  to  sight  and  knowledge.  Because  the 
Teeyahah  were  commonly  excluded  from  the  land  of  the  ’Azazimeh, 
it  is  probable  that  many  of  them  were  really  unfamiliar  with  the 
name  and  location  of  ’Ayn  Qadees,  while  those  who  did  know  it 
were  prompt  to  avert  all  discussion  of  the  feasibility  of  a visit  to 
it,  by  professing  ignorance  of  such  a site,  or  by  lying  about  it,  and 
extemporizing  a convenient  substitute  for  it,  just  as  the  one  plan 
or  another  seemed  most  likely  to  accomplish  the  end  desired.  And 

1 Dr.  Sohaff  ( Through  Bible  Lands,  p.  202,)  tells  of  warfare  between  the  Teeyahah, 
and  the  Terabeen  and  Haywat,  at  the  time  of  his  tour  in  1877 ; but  it  is  more  prob- 
able that  the  opponents  of  the  Teeyahah  were  the  ’Azazimeh ; as  is  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  his  Teeyahah  guides  were  unwilling  to  escort  him  in  the  direction  of 
the  ’Az&zimeh  toward  Hebron,  but  were  ready  to  take  him  among  the  Ter&been 
toward  Gaza. 


2 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  137. 


3 Ibid.,  I.,  186. 


4 MID- DESERT  STARTING  POINT 


243 


as  to  the  Terabeen  Arabs,  no  traveler  again  found  them  in  the 
willing  mood  in  this  matter,  in  which  they  were  found  by  Rowlands. 

And  this  raises  the  question,  How  is  it,  then,  that  a Yankee 
traveler,  on  a casual  tour,  was  enabled  to  overcome  all  these 
obstacles,  and  find  his  way  to  a site  shielded  so  jealously,  and  lied 
about  so  vigorously  and  variously,  by  successive  generations  of  the 
typical  Ishmaelites  who  surrounded  it  ? The  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion can  be  made  plain  only  by  quite  a little  story,  which  is  not 
without  its  dash  of  romantic  adventure,  as  well  as  its  gleam  of  par- 
ticular providences. 

2.  A MID-DESERT  STARTING  POINT. 

In  mid-desert,  at  the  point  where  the  great  Hajj  route  from 
Mekkeh  crosses  the  main  route  from  Sinai  to  Gaza  and  Hebron, 
stands  the  ancient  Castle  Nakhl,1  or  Castle  of  the  Palm,  an  Egyp- 
tian military  station  for  the  protection  of  pilgrims,  and  for  the 
guarding  of  Egyptian  interests  generally.  Reaching  that  point,  all 
travelers  going  north  or  east  must  change  camels  and  escort,  and 
take  a new  start  in  their  journey ings ; for  that  is  a central  land- 
mark of  tribal  divisions.  It  is  even  probable  that  this  has  been  so 
from  time  immemorial,  and  that  here  was  the  “ El-Paran  which  is 
on  the  wilderness,”  the  desert  oasis,  at  which  Kedor-la'omer  halted 
to  make  his  new  start  northward  when  he  went  into  Canaan  by  way 
of  'Ayn  Qadees.2 

The  different  offices  of  a desert- traveler's  dragoman,  and  a 
desert-traveler's  escorting-shaykh,  are  not  so  clearly  understood  by 
the  untraveled  reader  generally,  but  that  it  may  be  well  to  say  a 
word  of  explanation  just  here.  The  dragoman,  or  “ interpreter,'' 
as  that  term  primarily  means,3  is  the  man  who  contracts  with  you 

1 See  page  36  supra;  also  “ Frontispiece.”  2 Gen.  14 : 6,  7- 

3 The  Arabic  word  is  ( tarjamdn ).  The  Chaldaic  ( tergem ) “ to 

interpret”  (whence  “ Targum,”  “A  Paraphrase”)  is  from  the  same  root. 


244 


EADESH-BARNEA . 


to  carry  you  over  the  desert,  securing  for  you  transportation, 
shelter,  provisions,  service,  escort ; all  at  a specified  round  sum  per 
day,  or  per  trip.  So  far  as  trouble  and  expense  are  concerned,  the 
dragoman  is  to  relieve  you  of  all  responsibility.  But  the  drago- 
man has  no  direct  power  over  the  Arabs  of  the  desert,  in  one  tribe 
or  in  another.  He  cannot  give  you  protection  at  any  point,  save 
as  he  makes  an  arrangement  for  you  with  the  shaykh  of  each  tribe 
whose  domain  you  may  enter.  And  when  a shaykh  has  agreed 
with  your  dragoman  for  your  safe  escort  through  his  territory,  he 
commonly  accompanies  you,  himself,  on  your  journey  to  the  limits 
of  his  domain  ; and  he  always  insists  that  the  camels  for  your 
transportation  shall  be  hired  from  his  people,  or  their  full  hire 
paid  for  by  you,  in  case  other  camels  are  for  any  special  reason  to 
take  their  places  in  crossing  his  territory.  So,  it  will  be  seen,  that 
while  your  dragoman  can  go  with  you  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  your  desert  journey,  you  must  change  your  escorting-shaykh 
as  often  as  you  come  to  a new  tribal  line. 

At  Castle  Nakhl,  the  northward-bound  traveler  must  part  with 
his  kindly-disposed  Tawarah  guides,  and  put  himself  into  the 
hands  of  the  wilder  and  more  unattractive  Teeyahah.  Books  of 
desert  travel  have  many  times  described  the  noisy  scene  of  arrang- 
ing at  this  mid-desert  starting-point,  with  the  Teeyahah  shaykhs, 
for  an  escort  eastward  or  northward ; and  each  new  traveler  finds 
the  scene  more  animated  and  noteworthy  than  he  had  imagined. 

Of  late  years  Shaykh  Muslch  and  his  brother  Sulayman  have 
been  at  the  head  of  the  mid-desert  tribes ; and  have  met  and  baffled 
all  curious  seekers  after  ’Ayn  Qadees.  These  shaykhs  have  been 
well  and  fully  described  by  travelers ; especially  by  Palmer,1 
and  Bartlett.2 

Shaykh  Musleh,  the  elder  of  the  two,  and  the  Shaykh  el-Belad 
of  the  Teeyahah  Arabs,  is  quiet,  dogged,  shrewd,  and  strong 


1 Desert  of  the  Exodus , II.,  328-336. 


8 Egypt  to  Palestine , pp.  329-334. 


A MID-DESERT  STARTING  POINT. 


245 


willed.  Palmer  spoke  of  him,  in  1870,  as  “an  ill-looking,  surly 
ruffian,”  whose  features  were  on  an  occasion  “ rendered  more 
hideous  than  their  wont  by  a scowl  of  mingled  cunning  and  dis- 
trust.” Twelve  years  later,  Palmer  put  more  confidence  in  this 
“ surly  ruffian ;”  and  the  tragic  followings  of  this  confidence  caused 
a thrill  of  horror  to  all  the  civilized  world.  It  was  during  the 
Egyptian-English  war  of  1882,  that  Palmer  went  into  the  desert 
as  an  agent  of  the  English  government,  with  the  purpose  of  de- 
taching from  the  support  of  Araby  Pasha  the  Bed'ween  on  the  east 
of  Egypt.  Meeting  Musleh  accidentally,  at  the  westward  of  the 
old  shaykh’s  proper  domain,1  Palmer  entered  into  a conference 
with  him  concerning  the  object  of  his  mission.  Musleh,  having 
personal  ends  to  serve,2  entered  into  an  arrangement  with  Palmer, 
after  the  ordinary  Oriental  reluctance  had  been  sufficiently 
exhibited;3  and  from  that  time  it  would  seem  that  there  was 
hardly  any  limit  to  the  promises  of  assistance  which  Musleh  was 
ready  to  make.  “ With  Misleh,”  at  this  time,  “ was  Meter  abu 
Sofieh,  who  was  introduced  to  Palmer  as  the  Sheikh  of  the 
Lehewats,  occupying  all  the  country  east  of  Suez.”  4 This  claim 
of  place  and  power  for  Meter  was  baseless;  yet  in  consequence  of 
it,  Palmer  trusted  Meter,  as  he  had  trusted  Musleh,  who  introduced 
Meter,  and  it  is  “to  this  unfortunate  deception,”  for  which  Musleh 
seems  directly  responsible,  “that  the  unfortunate  termination  of 
the  second  expedition  was  principally  attributable.”5  Meter 
guided  Palmer;  and  Palmer  and  his  companions  were  brutally 
murdered  in  the  desert  while  under  the  guidance  of  Meter.6  To 
suppose  that  Shaykh  Musleh  was  innocently  deluded  into  the  be- 

1 Besant’s  Life  of  Edward  H.  Palmer , p.  275.  2 Ibid.,  p.  271. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  287  /.  4 Ibid.,  p.  275. 

5 Col.  Warren’s  opinion,  as  cited  in  Besant’s  Life,  p.  275 ; also  Besant’s  mention 

(p.  307)  of  “ Meter  abu  Sofieh,  whom  he  [Palmer]  trusted,  and  who  betrayed  him.” 

6 For  the  circumstances  and  details  of  Palmer’s  tragic  fate,  see  the  admirably 

written  story  by  Palmer’s  enthusiastic  friend  Besant,  as  above  referred  to. 


246 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


lief  that  Meter  was  really  all  that  he  claimed  for  himself,  and  was 
a competent  person  to  be  entrusted,  at  such  a time,  with  such  an 
undertaking  as  was  assigned  to  him,  is  to  misconceive  both  the 
character  and  the  ability  of  the  wily  old  Shaykli  el-Belad  of  the 
Teeyahah  Arabs. 

The  younger  brother  of  Musleh,  Shaykh  Sulayman  ibn  ’Amir 
(Solomon,  the  son  of  Omar,  or  of ’Amor1),  is  described  as  brilliant 
and  dashing,  “ a slightly-built,  dark-complexioned  Arab,  with  a 
handsome,  and  even  intellectual  countenance,  and  a polish  of  man- 
ner that  would  have  done  credit  to  a courtier.”  With  “ a clear 
eye  and  a fine  black  beard,” — a rare  possession  for  a desert  Arab, — 
Sulayman  is  “ more  picturesquely,  expensively,  and  tastefully 
dressed  ” than  most  desert  shayks ; appearing,  in  fact,  like  “ an 
Arab  gentleman  with  a tinge  of  foppishness.”  Palmer  says  of 
him,  in  their  earlier  intercourse2 : “ Being  ....  a painfully  polite 
man,  he  naturally  tried  on  all  occasions  to  cheat  us  in  a gentleman- 
like way,  and  we  were  obliged  to  parry  his  attempts  at  imposition 
as  gracefully  as  they  were  made.”  And  Bartlett  adds : “ He 
showed  himself  to  be  a man  of  character  and  decision  by  his  com- 
mand over  his  men,  and  a man  of  determination  by  his  attempts 
to  control  us.” 

Both  Musleh  and  Sulayman  have  long  been  familiar  with  the 
desire  of  travelers  to  find  out  about  ’Ayn  Qadees ; and  they  are 
skilled  in  dexterous  methods  of  evading  its  disclosure.  Had  either 
of  them  been  in  charge  of  me  and  my  companions  from  Castle 
Nakhl  northward,  I should  have  been  no  more  successful  in  my 
search  than  the  many  who  had  preceded  me.  It  was  just  here  that 
I had  my  first  advantage,  in  favoring  circumstances. 

1 See  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  290, 333.  In  the  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Name  Lists,” 
p.  268,  referring  to  the  names  ’Amir,  ’Ammurieh,  ’Amr,  Palmer  says:  “All  these  are 
forms  of  the  Arabic  name  ’Omar,  and  are  identical  with  the  ethnic  name  Amorite.” 

2 Sulayman  appears  again  in  connection  with  Palmer’s  latest  visits  to  the  desert. 

See  Besant’s  Life,  pp.  262,  270  299,  307  f. 


t 


ffit  fiRMsy 

Of  iht  ■ 
- 


OUR  SINAITIC  SHAYKH. 


SHAYKH  MOOSA.  OF  THE  TAWARAH  BED'WEEN. 


FAVORING  CIRCUMSTANCES  AT  NAKHL. 


247 


3.  FAVORING  CIRCUMSTANCES  AT  NAKHL. 

It  was  on  Saturday  morning,  March  26,  1881,  that  I reached 
Castle  Nakhl,  with  my  two  traveling  companions,  Mr.  George  H. 
Wattles,  a student  of  medicine  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  the  Rev.  Allan  M.  Dulles,  just  from  his  post-graduate  studies 
at  Leipzig.  We  had  come  from  Cairo,  by  way  of  Mount  Sinai, 
under  the  escort  of  Shaykh  Moosa,  the  Shaykli  el-Belad  of  the 
Tawarah  tribes;  one  of  the  very  finest  specimens  of  the  Bed'wv 
chieftain,  dignified,  kindly,  trustworthy  ; 1 a man  for  whom  we  had 
acquired  sincere  respect  and  hearty  esteem.2 

Shaykh  Sulayman  was  absent  on  a plundering  tour,  making 
good  the  reputation  of  his  tribe  for  its  one  remaining  ancestral 
trait;3  perhaps  in  the  country  of  the  JAnazeh,  “ who  occupy  the 
district  around  Palmyra,  and  to  the  east  of  the  Hauran ; ” for  they 
are  said  to  be  the  “ hereditary  victims  ” of  the  Teeyahah  in  their 
annual  raids  for  plunder.4  This  of  course  put  him  out  of  the 

1 Caroline  Paine,  in  her  Tent  and  Harem,  (pp.  258-265)  describes  a visit  made  by 
her  in  1852,  to  the  home  of  Shaykh  Moosa,  not  far  from  Wady  Fayran.  She  empha- 
sizes “ the  delicate  and  polite  manner  ” of  his  wives,  and  the  courtliness  of  his  perso- 
nal bearing.  “We  had  an  opportunity,”  she  says,  “of  studying  these  women  long 
and  carefully,  and  every  moment  increased  the  respect  and  wonder  inspired  by  as 
true  native  gentleness,  propriety,  and  courtesy,  as  ever  graced  a ‘ marble  hall.’  ” 
Referring  to  the  deference  shown  to  the  Bed'wy  chieftain  in  his  own  household,  she 
says : “ Sheikh  Moosa’s  appearance  certainly  entitled  him  to  all  the  consideration  in 
which  he  was  evidently  held  by  the  ladies  of  his  court.  He  was  of  a tall,  good 
figure,  and  his  apparent  height  was  increased  by  a long,  narrow,  woolen  robe,  and 
the  large  white  turban  that  surmounted  his  head.  His  face  with  tolerably  good 
features,  had  a refined  and  manly  expression ; his  deportment  was  easy,  grave,  and 
dignified ; and  he  escorted  us  with  as  much  suavity  as  if  he  had  been  accustomed  to 
the  refinement  of  civilized  life.” 

2 See  his  portrait  accompanying.  3 See  page  240,  supra. 

4 “ Once  at  least  in  every  year  the  Tev&heh  collect  in  force,  often  mustering  as 
many  as  1,000  guns,  and  set  off  on  camels  for  the  country  of  the  ’Anazeh,  a distance 

of  more  than  twenty  days'  journey.  Having  chosen  for  their  expedition  the  season 


248 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


question  as  our  escort.  Shaykh  Musleh  was  there ; but  he  was 
disabled  by  ill-health.  It  was,  indeed,  with  difficulty  that  he  had 
come  over  the  desert  to  meet  us,  in  response  to  a messenger  sent  to 
him  across  the  country  by  Shaykh  Moosa,  as  we  journeyed  toward 
Naklil.  A ride  to  Hebron  he  could  not  think  of.  Under  ordinary 
circumstances,  he  would  probably  have  insisted  that  we  should 
await  his  brother’s  return ; but  he  happened  to  be  in  a position  to 
desire  our  help,  and  that  fact  put  us  on  a different  footing  from 
travelers  generally. 

A younger  shaykh  of  the  Teeyahah  (Hussan,  son  of  a former 
shaykh,  Moosa,  a kinsman  of  Musleh)  had  been  arrested,  with 
some  companions,  by  the  Turkish  authorities  on  a charge  of  plun- 
dering (not  of  a robbery  of  which  he  had  been  personally  guilty, 
but  a robbery  by  individuals  of  his  tribe  or  clan,  for  which,  ac- 
cording to  Arab  ideas  of  tribal  solidarity,  he  was  fairly  to  be  held 
responsible) ; and  he  and  his  fellows  were  now  prisoners  at  Jeru- 
salem.1 With  all  of  the  fatherly  interest  of  an  old  shaykh  in  his 
people,  and  of  an  Oriental  patriarch  in  those  of  his  own  blood, 
Musleh  was  intent  on  the  release  of  the  captive  Hussan.  By  no 
fault  of  mine,  Musleh  hal  obtained  from  my  Egyptian  dragoman, 
and  from  the  Tawarah  Shaykh  Moosa,  an  exaggerated  idea  of  my 
personal  influence  with  those  in  authority  in  my  own  land,  and 


of  the  year  when  the  camels  are  sent  out  to  graze,  they  seldom  fail  to  come  across 
some  large  herd  feeding  at  a distance  from  the  camp,  and  watched  by  a few  atten- 
dants only.  These  they  drive  off,  the  baivdrideh — that  is  the  men  who  possess  guns 
— forming  a guard  on  either  side  and  in  the  rear,  and  the  rest  leading  the  beasts.  It 
sometimes,  though  rarely,  happens  that  they  get  off  clear  with  their  booty  before  the 
owners  are  aware  of  the  invasion,  but  in  many  cases  they  are  hotly  pursued,  and 
compelled  to  relinquish  their  prey,  and  take  to  their  heels.”  (Palmer’s  Des.  of 
Exod.,  II.,  295.)  It  is  the  same  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  patriarch  Job. 
(See  Job  1 : 17.) 

1 Dr.  William  C.  Prime,  in  his  Boat  Life  in  Egypt,  (pp.  97-108),  describes  graphi- 
cally a similar  arrest  of  the  famous  old  shaykh  of  the  ’Alaween,  Husayn  ibn-Egid, 
so  long  the  dependence  and  the  dread  of  visitors  to  Petra;  and  his  imprisonment  at 
Cairo. 


FAVORING  CIRCUMSTANCES  AT  NAKIIL. 


249 


with  its  representatives  abroad  ; and  lie  was  exceedingly  desirous 
of  my  good  offices  in  behalf  of  Hussan,  through  the  American 
consulate  at  Jerusalem.1 

Taking  up  the  incidental  statements  of  my  young  companions, 
concerning  my  editorship  of  a periodical  which  circulated  widely 
in  the  Bible-studying  community  in  my  land,  among  the  very  class 
most  likely  to  make  journeys  to  Sinai  and  Jerusalem,  my  enthusi- 
astic dragoman,  with  true  Oriental  license  and  imaginings,  had  en- 
larged the  story,  until,  as  I afterwards  learned  (for  it  was  all 
spoken  in  Arabic),  he  had  actually  reported  me  as  “ Director-in- 
Chief”  of  all  the  religious  papers — “the  sacred  press ” — of 
America,  and  the  shaper,  so  far,  of  the  opinions  of  American 
pilgrims.  He  had  moreover  given  this  fact  a practical  bearing  on 
Bed'wy  interests  (for  an  Arab  cares  nothing  for  anyone’s  position 
and  honors  except  so  far  as  they  may  affect  his  personal  interests), 
by  gravely  assuring  the  shaykhs  that  if  I were  well  treated  on  the 
desert,  and  were  well  pleased  with  the  route,  I would  speak  so  well 
of  it  as  to  turn  by  way  of  Suez  and  Mount  Sinai  a large  portion 
of  that  current  of  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem  which  now  went  by 
way  of  Alexandria  to  Jaffa ; and  so  there  would  be  a larger  de- 
mand than  ever  for  camels,  and  for  Arab  escort.  This  was  an 
argument  that  even  a Bed'wy  could  appreciate ; and  pressed  as  it 
was  by  a Muhammadan  preacher,  whose  character  and  mission  in- 
spired Arab  confidence,  it  was  not  without  its  weight.  Sure  I am 
that  I had  favors  granted  me,  and  was  freed  from  exorbitant  de- 
mands, at  various  points  along  my  desert  route,  quite  in  contrast 
with  the  treatment  reported  by  well-known  travelers  before  and 
after  me.  Notably  was  this  the  case  during  my  stay  at  Castle 

1 This  burden  was  still  on  the  mind  of  old  Musleh,  when  he  met  Palmer  in  the 
desert  in  July,  1882.  Palmer’s  report  of  Musleh’s  promise  at  that  time  is : “ He  says 
that  if  I can  get  three  sheikhs  out  of  prison,  which  I hope  to  do  through  Constanti- 
nople and  our  Ambassador,  all  the  Arabs  will  rise  and  join  me  like  one  man.”  (Be- 
sant’s  Life , p.  271.) 


250 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Nakhl,  and  in  my  dealings  with  the  shabby  old  Egyptian  governor1 
there,  and  the  cunning  Shaykh  Musleh.  I mention  all  this  as  so 
far  explanatory  of  certain  advantages  accorded  me  in  my  search 
for  the  long- hidden  wells  at  ’Ayn  Qadees. 

Of  course  Shaykh  Musleh  was  ready  to  assure  me  of  the  ground- 
lessness of  the  charges  against  Hussan,  and  of  the  certainty  of  my 
reward  if  I should  be  successful  in  securing  his  release.  If  Hus- 
san were  set  at  liberty,  he  said,  we  who  had  compassed  it  should 
be  “ as  kings  in  the  desert,”  when  we  came  that  way  again.  But  if 
Hussan  should  be  held — and  old  Musleh’ s ugly  face  lowered  threat- 
eningly as  he  said  it — the  desert  would  not  be  safe  for  any 
traveler.  As  a proof  of  his  confidence  and  his  generosity,  Musleh 
was  even  now  ready  to  give  me  an  Arab  steed,  whose  value  he  said 
was  £300,  if  only  I would  promise  to  make  intercession  for  Hus- 
san. His  whole  soul  was  on  fire  in  this  matter ; and  he  was  too 
anxious  for  my  help  in  his  need,  to  deny  me  any  reasonable  re- 
quest in  the  line  of  my  purpose. 

Old  Musleh’s  eyesight  was  failing  him,  and  his  lungs  were 
evidently  diseased.  Learning  that  one  of  my  companions  was  a 
physician  (“  a hakeem,”  as'they  call  it)  he  asked  to  be  restored  to  full 
sight,  and  to  be  relieved  of  his  cough.  A mild  palliative  for  the 
cough,  and  a simple  eye  wash,  gratified  him,  and  tended  to  increase 
his  willingness  to  accede  to  my  requests.  When  I pressed  for  an 
early  move  northward,  he  made  a mild  protest,  on  the  score  of  his 
inability  to  go  with  us,  and  his  brother’s  absence ; but  he  yielded 
that  point  gracefully,  since  “the  king’s  business  required  haste,”2 
and  the  sooner  I should  reach  Jerusalem  the  better  it  might  be  for 
the  captive  Hussan.  But  when  I urged  the  direct  northward 

1 This  old  wretch  is  described  by  Dr.  Field  in  his  On  the  Desert , pp.  215  ff.,  225  ff. 
He  was  near  the  scene  of  Professor  Palmer’s  murder,  and  was  strongly  suspected  of 
being  privy  to  it,  if  not,  indeed,  directly  responsible  for  it.  (See  Besant’s  Life , 
p.  321/.) 


2 1 Sam.  21 : 8. 


FAVORING  CIRCUMSTANCES  AT  NAKHL . 


251 


route  to  Hebron  instead  of  the  westerly  one  to  Gaza,  Musleh  was 
more  reluctant  to  yield.  The  Gaza  route  lay  through  t]*e  land  of 
the  friendly  Terabeen.  The  route  to  Hebron  passed  the  fields  of 
the  hostile  ’Azazimeh.  Musleh  insisted  that  only  three  families 
(each  traveling  party  on  the  desert  is  called  “a  family  ”)  had  passed 
over  the  Hebron  route  in  now  twelve  years,  and  he  magnified  its 
dangers.1  But  just  there  I was  in  dead  earnest,  and  when  he  was 
convinced  of  that,  he  was  disinclined  to  risk  my  possible  help  for 
Hussan,  on  a point  like  the  choice  of  available  routes.  He  con- 
sented, therefore,  to  my  going  by  way  of  Hebron;  and  here  again 
an  advantage  was  given  me. 

Shaykh  Musleh  had  brought  with  him  his  son  Hamdh,  a good- 
natured,  over-grown  boy  of  some  eighteen  years  or  more,  with 
somewhat  of  his  father’s  doggedness,  but  with  none  of  the  old 
man’s  shrewdness.  Ibraheem,  a son  of  Sulayman,  was  also  there. 
He  was  brighter  than  Hamdh;  a keen-eyed,  lithe-bodied  youth, 
showing  not  a little  of  his  father’s  alertness  of  mind  and  graceful- 
ness of  manner.  After  some  discussion,  it  was  agreed  that  the  two 
young  men  should  go  together  in  charge  of  our  escort  to  Hebron. 
Hamdh  was  to  be  in  command,  although  he  had  never  before  been 
sent  on  an  expedition  of  the  importance  of  this,  and  the  route 
itself  was  not  wholly  familiar  to  him. 

In  view  of  Hamdh’s  youth  and  inexperience,  a skilled  and  trusty 
guide  was  secured,  in  one  Owdy,2  a shrewd  and  intelligent  Arab, 
whose  home  was  not  far  from  Nakhl,  and  who  was  acquainted  with 
every  step  of  the  way  to  be  traversed,  and  with  the  needs  and  dan- 
gers of  desert  travel  in  the  region  of  the  ’Azazimeh.  With  all  his 
experience  of  desert  ways,  however,  Owdy  had  not  been  accustomed 
to  lend  his  services  as  an  escort  to  travelers ; and  he  seemed  to  feel 

1 See  page  240#.,  supra. 

2 I give  this  name  by  its  sound.  I do  not  know  its  form  in  Arabic.  Bonar  (Res.  of 
Sinai,  p.  297)  mentions  an  Arab,  named  “ Aaudheh,”  which  may  be  the  same  name 
as  this ; but  I give  the  phonetic  equivalents  of  the  name  as  I heard  it. 


252 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


it  somewhat  beneath  his  dignity,  to  lead  a camel  for  a “ Christian,” 
in  a party  commanded  by  boy  shaykhs.  He  was  willing  that  his 
camel  should  go;  but  he  was  inclined  to  stay  by  his  fields  of 
springing  barley  in  Wady  el-’Areesh  and  beyond.  The  pressure 
brought  on  him,  in  this  emergency,  was  much  like  that  which 
Moses  brought  on  Hobab,  when  the  latter  was  desired  as  a guide 
over  this  same  desert,  Hebron  ward,  and  gave  answer,  “ I will  not 
go;  but  I will  depart  to  mine  own  land,  and  to  my  kindred.” 
Then  it  was  that  Moses  urged : u Leave  us  not,  I pray  thee ; foras- 
much as  thou  knowest  how  we  are  to  encamp  in  the  wilderness, 
and  thou  mayest  be  to  us  instead  of  eyes.” 1 Thus  urged,  Hobab 
went : so  went  Owdy. 

When  arrangements  for  the  escort  were  finally  agreed  on, — in- 
cluding the  number  and  the  price  of  camels,  the  route  to  be  taken, 
and  the  time  of  starting  and  the  number  of  days  for  the  journey, — 
the  agreement  was  formally  ratified  between  the  contracting  parties, 
by  Shaykh  Musleh  and  my  dragoman  sitting  side  by  side;  their 
open  hands  held,  with  upturned  palms,  before  their  faces,  as  if 
they  were  the  pages  of  a book;  and  reciting  together  the  words  of 
the  Fat’hcitj  or  first  chapter  of  the  Quran.  This  formula,  with 
more  or  less  of  accompanying  salutations  and  embracings,  is  pro- 
nounced by  all  Muhammadans  on  every  important  occasion.2  Its 
invocation  is  a sacred  pledge  of  fidelity  between  “ believers.” 

Of  course  I was  cautious  about  making  promises  in  behalf  of 
Ilussan;  and  of  course  I refused  all  reward.  I did  agree  to  in- 
quire into  the  facts,  on  reaching  Jerusalem;  and  that  promise  I 
made  good.  I found,  indeed,  on  arriving  there,  that  his  case  was 
apparently  already  in  good  hands;  better  than  mine,  for  him.3 
Nor  did  I plan  to  take  any  incidental  advantage  of  Shaykh 

1  Nnm.  10 : 29-32. 

2  See  notes  on  this  chapter,  in  The  Koran  with  Notes , by  George  Sale. 

3  Yet  the  sequel  shows  (from  his  continued  imprisonment,  a year  later)  that  the 
efforts  for  his  release  were  futile. 


A MOVE  NORTHWARD. 


253 


Musleh’s  expectation  of  service  from  me.  It  was  only  after  the 
journey  was  over,  and  I looked  back  over  its  details,  that  I real- 
ized how  all  these  things  had  combined  to  give  me  exceptional 
opportunities  in  the  line  of  my  research ; and  I refer  to  them  now 
by  way  of  accounting  for  my  unexpected  success  in  that  line. 

4.  A MOVE  NORTHWARD. 

We  were  to  start  early  on  Monday  morning,  and  the  agreement 
was  that  we  should  be  at  Hebron  on  the  Saturday  night  following. 
Although  Hamdh  was  nominally  the  shaykh  of  the  party,  (or  the 
“family  ”)  for  this  journey,  he  was  so  much  younger  than  myself, — 
and  beardless  at  that,  while  I had  a patriarchal  beard, — that,  in 
accordance  with  the  Oriental  custom  of  giving  deference  to  age, 
and  of  honoring  the  beard,  I was  called  the  “ father  ” of  “ the 
family/7  and  Hamdh  was  formally  committed  to  my  fatherly  care 
by  his  original  father.  Putting  the  young  man’s  right  hand  be- 
tween my  two  hands,  old  Musleh  took  our  three  hands  between  his 
two,  and  said  to  me  earnestly,  in  Arabic  : “ He  has  been  my  son. 
Now  he  is  your  son.  Be  to  him  a good  father.”  Then  he  en- 
joined it  upon  his  burly  son  to  be  faithful  to  me  as  we  journeyed, 
and  to  do  for  me  any  favor  in  his  power.  This  injunction  proved 
of  important  service  to  me,  in  the  line  of  my  subsequent  re- 
searches. 

Although  there  were  but  three  of  us  travelers,  the  camel  train, 
which  should  bear  us  and  our  attendants,  and  all  our  needful  tents 
and  stores,  formed  no  insignificant  caravan.  The  dromedaries 
which  we  three  rode  were  of  a lighter  build,  and  better  blood,  and 
hence  faster  of  foot,  than  the  baggage  camels  which  carried  the 
heavier  loads.1  In  all,  there  were  about  fifteen  beasts  and  as  many 

1 There  is  a popular  notion,  promoted  by  the  dictionaries,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween a camel  and  a dromedary  is  a difference  in  the  humps;  the  one  having  one 
hump  and  the  other  two  humps.  But  this  is  an  error.  A dromedary  bears  the  same 


254 


KADESH-BAENEA. 


men.  It  was  our  custom  to  move  off  ahead  of  the  baggage  train 
in  the  morning — the  three  travelers  and  the  dragoman.  When  we 
halted  at  noon  for  a lunch,  we  usually  rested  for  an  hour  and  a- 
half  or  two  hours,  in  the  shade  of  a light  tent  which  the  dragoman 
had  brought,  together  with  a lunch-box,  on  his  camel.  Mean- 
while the  baggage  train  would  come  up  and  pass  us,  and  go  on  to 
the  night’s  halting-place — where  we  would  find  our  tents  ready 
pitched  for  us  on  our  arrival. 

On  Monday,  March  28,  we  were  off  bright  and  early,  being 
actually  on  the  march  soon  after  seven  o’clock  : an  expeditious 
start  for  the  first  day  of  a new  journey,  with  all  the  clamor  and 
wrangling  over  the  apportioning  of  loads  to  the  camels,  which  are 
an  essential  preliminary  to  an  Arab  caravan  undertaking.  And 
we  made  nearly  nine  and  a-half  hours  of  actual  travel  that  day — 
with  quick  stepping  and  a tolerably  straight  course — in  addition  to 
our  customary  rest  at  mid-day.  This  was  really  a remarkable  first 
day’s  travel  for  such  a journey ; as  any  Eastern  tourist  would 
recognize.1  It  showed  that  our  Teeyahah  guide  and  escort  were  in 
earnest  in  speeding  our  journey,  as  they  had  promised. 

The  second  day’s  journey  was  also  a long  one,  and  its  late  close 
found  us  in  Wady  Jeroor,  at  a point  at  least  sixty  miles  distant  in 
an  air  line  from  Castle  Nakhl ; so  that  we  must  have  made  not 
less  than  thirty-five  miles  a day,  by  the  course  we  had  taken.  We 
had  passed  up  along  Wady  el-’Areesh,  and  on  northeasterly  be- 
tween Naqb  Fahadeh  and  Jebel  Ikhrimm  (or  Jebel  Hareem);2 
had  skirted  Wady  Qarayyeh  and  Wady  Mayeen,  before  traversing 
Wady  esh-Sherayf;  had  seen  Jebel  ’Araeef  en-Naqah,  the  south- 
western bulwark  of  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  plateau,3  looming  up 

relation  to  the  camel,  that  a blooded  racer  does  to  a pack  horse.  (On  this  point,  see 
authorities  quoted  in  Fazerkerly’s  “ Journey,”  in  Walpole’s  Travels  in  the  East , 
p.  384,  also  Tischendorf  s Aus  dem  heiligen  Lande , p.  20,  note). 

1 See  page  142  ff.,  supra. 

2 See  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  277.  3 See  page  138,  supra. 


YANKEE  CATECHISING. 


255 


at  our  right,  and  Jebel  Yeleq  at  our  left,  as  we  neared  them  and 
then  passed  them  by;  and  Jebel  Helal  stretched  along  our  western 
horizon,  as  we  turned  easterly  out  of  Wady  esh-Sherayf,  for  a 
convenient  camping  place  in  Wady  Jeroor. 

Jeroor  is  the  Arabic  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  Gerar.1  It  was 
at  the  city  of  Gerar,  somewhere  at  the  northwest  of  our  present 
location,  that  Abraham  sojourned,  as  he  journeyed  along  south- 
ward from  Hebron ; but  the  domain  of  Shaykh  Abimelech  seems 
to  have  stretched  far  out  in  this  direction;  and  when  Isaac’s  pros- 
perity, in  his  growing  grain  fields,  excited  the  envy  of  Abimelech’s 
people  near  Gerar,  then  “Isaac  departed  thence,  and  pitched  his 
tent  in  the  valley  of  Gerar,” — or  in  Wady  Jeroor,  as  we  would 
call  it  now-a-days, — “and  dwelt  there.”2  And  now  we  were  near 
the  old  camping  ground  of  Isaac,  from  which  he  moved  again  and 
again,  northerly  toward  Rehoboth  and  Beersheba. 

5.  YANKEE  CATECHISING. 

It  was  well  into  the  evening,  after  our  dinner  was  over,  that  we 
called  our  dragoman  and  the  two  young  shaykhs  to  the  entrance 
of  our  dining  tent,  for  a conference  over  the  journey  of  the  day 
and  the  plans  of  the  morrow.  They  sat,  or  squatted,  on  the 
ground  before  us,  in  Oriental  fashion ; and  we  sat  in  camp-chairs 
just  above  them.  It  was  then  and  there  that  for  the  first  time  I 
broached  the  question  of  the  whereabouts  of  ’Ayn  Qadees. 

Being  familiar  with  the  views  of  Rowlands,  and  Palmer,  and 
Bartlett,  I was  of  the  opinion  that  Bartlett  was  correct  in  suppos- 
ing that  he  had  been  shown  the  real  ’Ayn  Qadees  by  Shaykh 
Sulayman ; and  it  followed  as  a matter  of  course  that  it  must  be 
not  far  from  our  present  location.  On  this  supposition,  I began 
my  inquiries.  Finding  that  Jebel  Muwayleh  was  but  a few  hours 


See  page  63  supra. 


2 Gen.  26  : 6-17. 


256 


KADESH-BA  RNEA . 


nor tli  ward  of  us,  and  remembering  that  both  Rowlands  and  Bart- 
lett had  taken  that  as  a starting  point  of  their  search,  I asked  if 
we  could  not  turn  aside  from  our  track  beyond  Muwayleh,  on  the 
morrow,  in  order  that  I might  visit  ’Ayn  Qadees.  To  my  surprise, 
neither  my  dragoman  nor  either  of  the  young  shaykhs  seemed  to 
have  any  knowledge  of  such  a place.  After  a little  groping  for 
some  clue  to  the  locality,  I asked  that  Owdy,  our  guide,  be  sent  for. 

But  Owdy,  when  he  appeared,  was  seemingly  more  ignorant 
than  the  others.  As  I questioned  him  about  one  locality  after 
another,  concerning  which  I could  not  be  in  doubt,  I became  satis- 
fied that  his  ignorance  on  every  point  was  too  dense  for  reality, 
with  such  an  experienced  guide  as  himself.  It  was  quickly  obvious 
that  he  was  playing  a part — as  the  others  were  not ; and  I quite 
lost  my  patience  with  him.  And  there,  again,  I unconsciously 
gained  an  advantage ; if  I had  kept  my  patience,  I should  have 
had  nothing  else  to  report.  Without  any  deliberate  plan  in  my 
action,  I instinctively  took  the  very  course  to  bring  out  the  truth 
from  an  unwilling  Arab  witness. 

A Bed'wy  finds  it  hard  to  realize  the  actual  value  of  books — 
especially  of  books  of  travel.  He  either  undervalues  them,  or  he 
overestimates  them.1  He  commonly  takes  it  for  granted,  to  begin 
with,  that  you  know  nothing  about  his  country,  if  you  have  not 
visited  it  before.  But  if  you  show  him  that  you  know  the  truth 
of  a matter  about  which  he  has  professed  ignorance,  or  lied  to  you, 


1 Wilson  ( Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  264)  tells  of  his  discovering  a treacherous  surface 
under  a circle  of  ashes  near  a chalk  hill  at  Beer  Bejeem  [the  “stoned-up  well?  ”]  and 
asking  an  Arab  to  step  across  it — who  of  course  plunged  in  it  over  foot.  “ When  he 
found  that  he  lost  his  footing  jn  it,  and  that  I was  testing  him  by  a practical  joke, 
he  immediately  cried  out,  ‘ Oh,  these  books  of  the  English  gentlemen ; they  describe 
every  knoll  and  every  pit  in  our  country ! The  English  have  no  need  of  guides. 
They  know  everything  better  than  we  ourselves  do.’  He  innocently  thought  that  we 
must  have  had  a description  of  this  wreath  of  ashes  in  some  of  our  books.”  Again, 
Palmer  ( Des . of  Exod.,  II.,  387)  tells  of  his  surprising  Shaykh  Sulayman  by  insisting 
on  going  a direct  road  to  Beersheba  when  the  latter  supposed  he  could  take  a cir- 


YANKEE  CATECHISING. 


257 


he  is  quite  likely  to  think  that  it  is  useless  for  him  to  try  to  de- 
ceive one  who  has  the  help  of  Christian  books  ; and  then  he  is 
ready  to  tell  you  all  he  knows.1  Moreover,  he  is  exceedingly 
sensitive  to  his  reputation  of  familiarity  with  his  own  region  of 
country  ; for  an  Arab,  like  an  American  Indian,  thinks  there  is  no 
ignorance  so  culpable  as  ignorance  of  the  tracks  and  landmarks  of 
the  territory  he  traverses. 

“ Oh,  well ! ” I said  impatiently,  u the  trouble  is,  you  don’t 
know  your  country  as  well  as  I do.  We  ought  to  change  places. 
I am  giving  you  bakhsheesh,  to  show  me  your  country.  Now,  you 
give  me  bakhsheesh,  and  I’ll  show  you  your  country.” 

I spoke  quickly  and  contemptuously,  and  the  Arabs  could  catch 
the  spirit  of  my  sneer,  even  before  my  words  were  translated  by 
the  surprised  and  interested  dragoman.  Nor  was  he  slow  in  re- 
peating my  words  in  Arabic.  The  innocent  young  shaykhs  and  the 
cunning  Owdy  watched  me  wonderingly,  to  know  just  what  I 
meant  by  all  this ; and  I proceeded  to  enlighten  them. 

“ To-morrow  morning  we  will  go  on  to  ’Ayn  Muwayleh.  We 
will  go  past  that.  Then  we  will  turn  off  from  the  track,  to  the 
right.  We  will  go  down  that  way  about  one  hour.  There  we  will 
find,  one,  two,  three,  Avells.  Beyond  them,  we  will  find  flags  and 
rushes  growing.  Then,  a little  further  on,  there  are  more  wells. 
That  is  Qadees.2  You  don’t  know  it ; but  I do.  Give  me  bakh- 
sheesh ; and  I’ll  show  it  to  you.” 

cuitous  path  without  being  found  out.  “ Suleiman  was  . . . astonished  that,  without 
having  visited  the  country  before,  we  knew  in  which  direction  Beersheba  lay.  He 
could  not  conceive  it  possible  that  any  ‘ writing  or  spy -glasses  should  tell  us  that'  ” 

1 Palmer  {Ibid.,  p.  326)  says  on  this  point : “ When  once  an  Arab  has  ceased  to 
regard  you  with  suspicion,  you  may  surprise  a piece  of  information  out  of  him  at 
any  moment ; and  if  you  repeat  it  to  him  a short  time  afterwards,  he  forgets  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten  that  he  has  himself  been  your  authority,  and  should  the  information 
be  incorrect  will  flatly  contradict  you  and  set  you  right,  while  if  it  be  authentic  he 
is  puzzled  at  your  possessing  a knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  deems  it  useless  to  with- 
hold from  you  anything  further.” 

2 See  Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  359  /. 


17 


258 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


As  this  little  speech  was  translated  to  them,  the  three  men  looked 
up  at  me  in  blank  amazement.  Then  they  looked  at  the  dragoman. 
Then  they  looked  at  each  other.  After  a little,  the  three  talked 
among  themselves  in  low,  earnest  tones.  Gradually  they  waxed 
warmer  in  discussion.  After  awhile  they  turned  to  the  dragoman,  and 
carried  on  a spirited  conversation  with  him.  Then  he  turned  to  me. 

“ Mister  Trom-bool,”  he  said,  “ I tell  you  now  the  true  ; honor- 
bright.  They  tell  me  true  now,  on  the  Quran.’’  He  was  a 
Muhammadan  preacher,  and  he  had  pledged  them  on  their  faith. 
“ They  know  that  place  you  tell  them  ; but  they  no  call  it  that 
name.  They  no  call  that  ‘ Qadees.’  ” 

“ Oh ! they  do  know  it,  do  they  ? ” I asked,  as  if  still  in  doubt. 
“ And  what  do  they  call  the  place  ? ” 

“ They  call  that,  ‘ Qasaymeh.’  ” 

At  this  unexpected  response,  which  I could  not  but  believe  was 
sincere,  there  flashed  into  my  mind  the  thought,  that  the  wily 
Sulayman  had  palmed  off  Qasaymeh  as  Qadees  upon  my  Ameri- 
can predecessor  on  that  route — whose  description  I had  followed ; 
and  at  once  I was  on  another  track. 

“ But  do  they  know  where  Qadees  is,  if  they  don’t  think  it’s 
there  f ” I asked,  as  if  keeping  them  still  on  trial  as  to  their  know- 
ledge of  their  own  country. 

The  two  young  shaykhs  did  not  know  ; but  Owdy  did.  He  had 
lived  in  that  region  as  a boy,  and  had  traversed  it  far  and  near. 
He  told  the  direction  of  Qadees,  and  how  it  could  be  reached  from 
our  present  camp.  Its  distance  was  “ a short  day’s  journey.” 
Then  I asked  him  if  he  had  ever  seen  ’Ayn  Qadayrat.  He  said 
that  he  visited  it  once,  twenty  years  before.  As  I questioned 
farther,  he  gave  me  the  bearings  of  the  one  well  from  the  other, 
and  both  again  from  Qasaymeh.  I was  morally  certain  that  Owdy 
was  now  telling  the  truth ; for  he  thought  I knew  a great  deal 
about  the  country ; and  he  was  trying  to  prove  that  he  knew  as 
much  as  I did. 


A RESTLESS  NIGHT. 


259 


By  midnight,  the  tangle  was  all  unraveled.  I could  see  where 
the  three  wells  were,  and  how  to  reach  them.  But  as  yet  this  was 
only  a personal  conviction.  I had  no  proof  to  offer  to  anyone 
else.  Now  came  the  question.  Could  I visit  the  wells,  and  see 
them  for  myself  ? Owdy  said  that  this  was  not  to  be  thought  of. 
“ Qadees  was  in  the  ’Azazimeh’s  country.  The  ’Azazimeh  would 
rob  and  murder  anyone  who  came  into  that  region.”  It  was  bad 
enough  for  the  Teeyahah  to  go  along,  as  now,  on  the  edge  of  the 
’Azazimeh’s  territory.  To  venture  directly  into  the  enemy’s 
country  was  an  impossibility.  I must  make  the  most  of  knowing 
where  the  wells  were,  without  the  hope  of  seeing  them.  And  with 
that  for  my  comfort,  our  conference  broke  up  for  the  night. 


6.  A RESTLESS  NIGHT. 

That  was  a restless  night  for  me.  My  thoughts  were  too  busy 
for  sleep.  The  solution  of  a geographical  mystery  was  almost 
within  my  grasp.  How  could  I let  it  slip  ? No  one  from  abroad 
had  yet  visited  the  three  wells  in  question.  It  had  even  been 
doubted  that  there  were  three.  Qadayrat,  no  traveler  had  seen. 
Qadees  had  been  seen  by  only  one,  in  many  centuries ; and  his 
visit  there  was  forty  years  ago.  Qasaymeh  had  at  one  time  passed 
by  its  own  name  ; and  again  it  had  done  duty  for  each  of  the  other 
two  wells.  If  only  I could  now  visit  the  three,  and  note  their 
peculiarities  and  relative  bearing,  what  a service  I might  render  to 
the  cause  of  biblical  research  ! Had  I any  right  to  lose  such  as 
opportunity  as  this,  on  the  score  of  its  possible  dangers  ? 

And  what,  after  all,  were  the  real  dangers  of  the  desired  search  ? 
My  three  years  of  varied  experience  in  active  campaigning,  during 
our  American  civil  war,  had  taught  me  that  the  actual  perils  of 
scouting  in  an  enemy’s  country  were  often  far  less  than  the  imagi- 
nary ones ; and  I was  sure  that  now  our  timid  young  shaykhs,  and 
perhaps  the  reluctant  guide  also,  were  seeing  more  dangers  ahead, 


260 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


on  the  suggested  trip,  than  we  should  ever  meet  if  we  made  the 
venture.  Moreover,  my  observation  of  the  desert  Bed'ween  thus  far 
had  not  much  impressed  me  with  a sense  of  their  formidableness.  I 
had  noticed  that  the  only  firearm  of  the  average  Bed'wy  was  a 
long-barreled,  smooth-bore,  flint-lock  musket ; not  infrequently 
minus  the  lock  : and  I had  never  yet  seen  an  Arab  hit  anything 
that  he  fired  at.  Yet  every  Arab  seemed  to  think  his  enemy’s 
armament  a great  deal  more  to  be  dreaded  than  his  own.  In  fact, 
desert  hostilities,  so  far  as  I had  seen  them,  or  had  learned  of  them 
from  the  Arabs  themselves,  looked  to  me  very  much  like  Chinese 
warfare  : each  side  trying  to  frighten  his  enemy  away  from  a fight 
— and  succeeding.  The  risk  of  bloodshed  in  such  a move  as  I 
was  pressing,  seemed  hardly  worth  considering.  And  as  to  robbery, 
what  was  that  in  such  a hunt  as  this  ? 

By  daylight,  my  mind  was  clear ; and  I was  up  and  over  at  our 
dragoman’s  tent,  determined  to  compass  a visit  to  those  three  wells 
— whether  it  were  possible  or  not. 


7,  HELP  FROM  A NOTABLE  DRAGOMAN. 

Our  dragoman,  Muhammad  Ahmad  Hedayah,1  was  a character; 
too  much  of  a character  to  be  let  pass  without  fuller  notice.  He 
was  an  Alexandrian ; a native  Egyptian,  of  Moorish  stock.  He 
had  been  a dragoman  for  a quarter  of  a century ; but  was  still  in 
the  prime  of  life.  He  had  amassed  a handsome  property,  and  was 
the  owner  of  five  or  six  substantial  buildings  in  the  European 
quarter  of  his  city ; all  of  which  have  since  been  swept  away,  in 
the  destruction  of  that  quarter  by  Araby  Pasha.  He  was  also  a mer- 
chant of  some  prominence ; but  he  kept  on  at  his  old  business  as 
dragoman  from  a veritable  love  of  it.  He  enjoyed  being  on  the 
desert,  or  up  the  Nile,  or  in  the  Holy  Land  ; he  had  special  pride 


1 This  surname  is  the  Arabic  name  for  the  “ black  hawk  ” ( milvics  ater.) 


THi  liPW 
OP  !’ He 


MUHAMMAD  AHMAD  HEDAYAH,  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 


HELP  FROM  A NOTABLE  DRAGOMAN 


261 


in  accompanying  travelers  who  were  already  well  known,  or  who 
would  help  him  to  become  so  ; for  he  cared  more  for  reputation 
than  for  money.  He  had  been  the  dragoman  of  Canon  Farrar, 
and  of  Lady  Elizabeth  Cartwright,  and  of  Colonel  Colin  Camp- 
bell, of  Great  Britain ; and  of  General  McClellan,  and  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Charles  S.  Robinson,  and  of  Professor  Charles  M.  Mead,  of 
the  United  States.  He  knew  the  value  of  books,  and  the  possible 
gain  to  himself  from  his  mention  in  a book.  It  was,  indeed,  one 
of  his  boasts  that  he  figured  in  a book  by  Mr.  Charles  Dudley 
Warner  ; figured,  too,  to  very  good  advantage.  He  also  treasured 
a magazine  in  which  he  was  mentioned  approvingly  by  Canon 
Farrar ; and  he  more  than  once  asked  me  to  write  a book,  and 
“ put  him  in  it.” 

Mr.  Warner’s  descriptive  sketch  of  this  dragoman  cannot,  in 
fact,  be  improved  on,  for  vividness  and  accuracy.  “Achmed  was 
a character.  He  had  the  pure  Arab  physiognomy,  the  vivacity  of 
an  Italian,  the  restlessness  of  an  American,  the  courtesy  of  the 
most  polished  Oriental,  and  a unique  use  of  the  English  tongue. 
Copious  in  speech,  at  times  flighty  in  manner,  gravely  humorous, 
and  more  sharp-witted  than  the  ‘ cutest’  Yankee,  he  was  an  ex- 
ceedingly experienced  and  skilful  dragoman,  and  perfectly  honest 
to  his  employers.  Achmed  was  clad  in  baggy  trousers,  a silk  scarf 
about  his  waist,  short  open  jacket,  and  wore  his  tarboosh  on  the 
back  of  his  sloping  head.1  He  had  a habit  of  throwing  back  his 
head  and  half  closing  his  wandering,  restless  black  eyes  in  speak- 
ing, and  his  gestures  and  attitude  might  have  been  called  theatrical 
but  for  a certain  simple  sincerity ; yet  any  extravagance  of  speech 
or  action  was  always  saved  from  an  appearance  of  absurdity  by  a 
humorous  twinkle  in  his  eyes.”2  Ahmad  was  brought  to  Mr. 
Warner’s  notice  by  his  “ unselfish  zeal”  in  behalf  of  the  latter’s 
dragoman,  Abd  el-Attee,  who  was  maliciously  arrested  and  locked 


1 See  his  portrait,  accompanying. 


2 Warner’s  In  the  Levant,  p.  220. 


262 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


up  by  Turkish  officials  in  Bayroot.  Ahmad’s  “ quick  generosity,” 
his  “ enthusiasm,”  his  rapid  swaying  from  hope  to  despondency  as 
his  surroundings  changed,  are  admirably  illustrated  in  Mr.  War- 
ner’s story  of  him. 

Knowing  his  vulnerable  side,  as  I came  to  him  in  his  tent  that 
morning,  I approached  it  directly.  I told  him  that  no  traveler 
had  visited  ’Ayn  Qadees  in  forty  years ; and  that  none  had  ever 
visited  ’Ayn  Qadayrat.  If  he  would  help  me  to  get  there  now,  I 
would  write  a book  about  it,  and  “ put  him  in  my  book J’  That 
touched  him.  “ Write  it,  ‘ Muhammad  Ahmad  Effendi1  Hedayah, 
8 Silk  Bazar,  Alexandria,’  ” he  said  promptly ; and  he  repeated  the 
“ 8 Silk  Bazar.”  Then  he  asked  me  on  what  terms  he  might  bar- 
gain with  the  young  shaykhs  and  their  followers.  I told  him  I 
would  leave  that  wholly  with  himself.  Any  bargain  he  should 
make,  I would  ratify ; for  I knew  I could  trust  him  implicitly. 
He  was  thoroughly  enlisted,  and  told  me  he  would  soon  have  it 
arranged. 

But  the  dragoman  found  it  no  easy  task  to  bring  the  young 
shaykhs  and  Owdy  to  his  view  of  the  case.  They  had  no  desire  to 
figure  in  a book ; nor  was  a venture  into  the  ’Azazimeh  country 
attractive  to  their  unromantic  imaginings.  Had  it  not  been  for 
the  dragoman’s  influence  as  a Muhammadan  leader,  and  his  enthu- 
siasm in  pressing  his  point  for  his  own  sake,  their  consent  would 
never  have  been  secured.  Even  when  Owdy  and  Ibraheem  were 
wron  over,  Hamdh  continued  childishly  obstinate.  At  Nakhl  we 
had  wanted  to  reach  Hebron  by  Saturday  night,  he  said ; and  his 
father  had  directed  him  to  press  on  accordingly  with  all  possible 
speed.  If  we  had  now  changed  our  mind,  that  was  no  reason  why 
he  should  change  his.  A bargain  was  a bargain.  He  would 
stand  by  his  original  agreement ; and  not  budge  from  it.  The 

1 His  ability  to  write,  and  his  social  standing,  justified  him  in  the  use  of  the  appel- 
lative “ Effendi.” 


OFF  FROM  THE  MAIN  TRACK. 


263 


proffer  to  him  of  bakhsheesh  seemed  in  itself  of  no  weight.  Obsti- 
nacy and  prejudice  were  stronger  than  cupidity.  Then  the  drago- 
man pressed  on  Hamdh  the  injunction  of  his  father  to  do  every- 
thing in  his  power  to  favor  and  gratify  me  on  this  trip.  If  the 
old  shaykhs  had  been  along,  we  could  never  have  deviated  from 
our  Hebron  path ; but  tact,  persistency  and  determination  finally 
overbore  the  young  man ; and  the  details  of  a new  bargain  were 
entered  on. 

As  to  taking  the  entire  caravan  into  the  ’Azazimeh  country, 
that  was  not  to  be  thought  of.  The  camel  train  must  wait  where 
it  was,  or  move  slowly  up  the  road,  while  the  dromedaries  and 
their  riders  went  off  on  this  expedition.  But  with  the  Arab  idea 
of  a share  for  all  in  any  good  fortune,  every  man  of  the  caravan 
must  receive  his  portion  of  bakhsheesh,  whether  he  went  or  stayed. 
Extra  payment  must  then  be  made  to  those  who  were  on  the 
expedition ; and  finally  I must  bind  myself  to  release  the  Arabs 
from  all  responsibility  for  their  contract  to  be  at  Hebron  within 
the  time  originally  specified ; and  must  promise,  moreover,  to  make 
good  any  loss  to  them  from  ’Azazimeh  plundering.  All  this  I 
agreed  to  ; and  the  new  contract  was  concluded. 

O 7 


8.  OFF  FROM  THE  MAIN  TRACK. 

It  was  yet  only  7.25  in  the  morning  (of  Wednesday,  March  30) 
when  our  party  was  fairly  off  on  its  way  eastward  ; from  our 
camping- place  in  Wady  Jeroor.  Besides  ourselves — the  three 
travelers — there  were  the  dragoman,  the  two  young  shaykhs,  the 
guide  Owdy,  and  a sooty  Abyssinian  slave  of  Shaykh  Musleh 
(eight  persons),  with  four  dromedaries,  in  the  party.  The  remainder 
of  the  caravan  was  put  in  charge  of  our  “ waiter,”  Muhammad, 
an  intelligent  and  enterprising  Egyptian,  who  was  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales’s  escort  in  the  Holy  Land  in  1862.  His  orders  were  to 
make  a short  day’s  journey  northward,  and  there  await  our  return. 


264 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Moving  briskly  eastward  for  about  two  hours  and  a quarter/ we 
crossed  Wadies  Sasab,  Sa’eedeh  and  Samrah;  all  three  wadies 
running  southerly,  the  latter  curving  towrard  the  west.  Well- 
defined  camel  tracks  traversed  them.  As  yet  we  had  crossed  no 
hills,  the  wadies  being  separated  only  by  gravelly  ridges ; but  we 
had  skirted  the  southern  face  of  a mountain  range  which  included 
a single  prominent  peak  of  peculiar  formation,  like  a series  of 
bright  colored  terraces  around  a conical  trunk  (with  a suggestion 
of  the  step-pyramid  of  Saqqarah x),  resembling  the  central  peak  in 
Palmer’s  sketch  of  the  “ Wilderness  of  Kadesh,”1 2and  perhaps 
being  the  “Jebel  Aneigeh,”  of  his  map;  possibly  his  “Jebel 
Meraifig : ” on  this  point  I cannot  be  sure. 

Passing  along  the  border  of  a fourth  wady — Wajat — also  trend- 
ing southerly — we  approached  a low  range  of  hills  running  north- 
west and  southeast.  Inclining  a little  to  the  north  of  east,  and 
then  again  eastward,  we  rose  that  hill  range,  and  an  extensive 
plain,  or  wady,  stretched  before  us  from  its  eastward  base.  The 
range  was  Jebel  Hawwadeh.  The  plain  was  Wady  Qadees.  It 
was  with  a thrill  of  delight  that  we  caught  our  first  view  of  the 
great  sanctuary  camping-ground  of  the  Hebrews;  and  we  were 
quite  too  full  of  the  excitement  of  successful  pursuit,  to  have  a 
thought  of  special  danger,  as,  at  10.30,  we  descended  the  hill  side 
into  the  wady  beyond,  after  three  hours  quick  riding  from  our 
morning  camp.  This  Jebel  Hawwadeh  was  a new  name  to  me. 
When  I told  of  it  to  Professor  Palmer,  on  my  return  to  London, 
he  knew  nothing  of  such  a mountain  ; but  he  gave  me  its  meaning 
as  “ Mountain  of  the  Cisterns.”3 

1  See  Ebers’s  Picturesque  Egypt , I.,  155. 

2 This  sketch,  by  Tyrwhitt  Drake,  faces  page  349  of  the  second  volume  of  Palmer’s 
Desert  of  the  Exodus.  Although  it  is  called  “ The  Wilderness  of  Kadesh,”  I am 
satisfied,  from  my  conversation  with  Professor  Palmer,  that  it  is  a point  westward  of 
Wady  Qadees. 

3 Jebel  el-Hawwadeh  ( ),  The  Mountain  of  the  Cisterns,  or  Reservoirs. 


DESERT  DANGERS. 


265 


9.  DESERT  DANGERS. 

When  fairly  down  in  Wady  Qadees  we  were  for  the  first  time 
out  of  sight  of  all  familiar  landmarks.  We  were  in  a new  region  ; 
we  were  away  from  the  accustomed  track  of  the  Teeyahah;  we 
were  in  the  stronghold  of  the  ’Azazimeh.  With  our  smaller 
party,  the  silence  and  solitariness  of  the  desert  seemed  even 
greater  than  usual.  Our  Arabs  recognized  this.  They  grew 
uneasy.  Young  Hamdh  began  to  question  whether  after  all  he 
had  done  wisely,  in  this  departure  from  the  plans  of  his  father  and 
the  traditions  of  his  people. 

Having  dismounted  from  my  camel  and  turned  aside  to  examine 
some  fragments  of  old  building  stones  which  had  caught  my  eye, 
I returned  to  the  party  just  in  season  to  stay  Hamdh  and  his  fol- 
lowers from  turning  squarely  about  and  hurrying  back  to  the  cara- 
van, in  much  such  a panic  as  that  which  possessed  the  Israelites  of 
old  in  this  same  wady,  when  they  counted  themselves  as  grasshop- 
pers in  comparison  with  the  ’Azazimeh  giants  of  their  day,  and 
their  cry  was : “ Wherefore  hath  the  Lord  brought  us  unto  this 
land,  to  fall  by  the  sword  . . . Let  us  return.” 1 There  was  need 
of  all  my  energy  and  positiveness  in  their  most  determined  expres- 
sion, to  reassure  the  timid  Arabs,  and  to  start  them  forward  again 
on  their  journey. 

Nor,  under  the  circumstances,  were  these  fears  of  our  Bed'ween 
entirely  without  reason.  In  venturing  upon  the  territory  of  the 
’Azazimeh  without  their  consent,  we  rendered  ourselves  liable  to 
the  confiscation  of  all  our  possessions.  This  would  not  be  robbery, 
as  the  Arabs  view  it ; but  simply  tax-collecting.  “ By  desert  law, 
the  act  of  passing  through  the  desert  entails  forfeiture  of  goods  to 
whoever  can  seize  them.”2  “The  desert  is  ours,  and  every  man 


1 Num.  13 : 29-33 ; 14 : 1-4. 


2 Bedouins  of  Euphrates,  p.  391. 


2G6 


KADESII-BARNEA. 


who  passes  over  it  must  pay  us  tribute/71  is  the  Arab  claim.  Nor 
is  this  a law  of  the  desert  alone.  “ Of  whom  do  the  kings  of  the 
earth  take  custom  or  tribute?  of  their  own  children,  or  of 
strangers  ? 77  “ Of  strangers.77  2 

Theft  among  brethren  (and  all  who  are  of  one  tribe,  including 
those  who  are  its  guests,  are  Arab  brethren3)  is  rarer  in  the  Sinaitic 
desert  than  among  the  best  of  civilized  communities.  “The  strict 
honesty  of  the  Bedawin  among  themselves,77  says  Dr.  Robinson,4 
“is  proverbial;  however  little  regard  they  may  have  to  the  rights 
of  property  in  others.  If  an  Arab’s  camel  dies  on  the  road,  and 
he  cannot  remove  the  load,  he  only  draws  a circle  in  the  sand 
round  about,  and  leaves  it.  In  this  way  it  will  remain  safe  and 
untouched  for  months.77  One  of  the  Arabs  in  our  party  over  the 
desert  dropped  his  pouch  of  corn.  Discovering  its  loss  some  time 
after,  he  proposed  to  turn  back  and  find  it.  As  we  had  meantime 
passed  Arabs  going  in  the  other  direction,  I suggested  that  they 
might  have  picked  up  the  corn  and  taken  it  for  their  own  use.  At 
this  I was  told  that  I did  not  understand  Arab  ways.  “ That 
would  not  be  posssible  among  the  Bed'ween.”  Burckhardt  tells5  of 
being  pointed  to  a cliff  not  far  from  Wady  Gharandel,  from  which 
a Bed'wy  “ of  the  Arabs  of  Tor  precipitated  his  son,  bound  hands 
and  feet,  because  he  had  stolen  corn  out  of  a magazine  belonging 
to  a friend  of  the  family.77  And  Burckhardt  adds,  of  the  Arabs 
of  the  great  northeastern  desert  of  Arabia,  that  “ the  Aneze  Be- 
douins are  not  so  severe  in  such  instances ; but  they  would  punish 
a Bedouin  wrho  should  pilfer  anything  from  his  guest’s  baggage.77 
“ It  is  true,”  says  Palmer,6  “ that,  in  the  case  of  a strange  or 
hostile  tribe/or  of  an  unauthorized  intruder  upon  their  own  par- 
ticular territory,  their  ideas  of  the  rights  of  property  do  not  accord 
with  our  own  ; but  amongst  themselves,  or  towards  those  who  have 

1 Stephens’s  Incidents  of  Travel , I.,  203.  2 Matt.  17  : 25,  26. 

3 See  page  237  f.,  supra.  4 Bib.  Res.,  I.,  142. 

5 Travels  in  Syria,  p.  475  /.  eJ)cs.  of  Exod.,  I.,  79/. 


DESERT  DANGERS. 


267 


entrusted  themselves  to  their  guardianship,  their  honesty  and  faith 
is  unimpeachable;  while,  thanks  to  the  terrible  rigor  of  the 
‘ Vendetta/  or  blood-feud,  homicide  is  far  rarer  in  the  desert  than 
in  civilized  lands.” 

But  stealing  from  one’s  own  people  is  one  thing ; while  levying 
tribute  on  strangers,  or  making  reprisals  from  enemies,  is  a very 
different  thing,  as  the  Arab  views  it.  Every  Bed'wy  is  an  author- 
ized tax-collector  when  he  meets  a stranger  within  the  limits  of  his 
tribe ; and  again  he  feels  called  to  speak  and  act  for  his  tribe  when 
he  meets  an  enemy  of  his  tribe  anywhere.  But  this  is  not  lawless- 
ness. As  Burton  expresses  it 1 : “ The  true  Bedouin  style  of  plun- 
dering, with  its  numerous  niceties  of  honor  and  gentlemanly 
manners,  gives  the  robber  a consciousness  of  moral  rectitude.”  Or, 
as  Warburton  says  of  these  lawfully-lawless  people:2  “ Though 
they  will  risk  their  lives  to  steal  [conscientiously],  they  will  never 
contravene  the  wild  rule  of  the  desert.” 

It  was  in  this  light,  therefore,  that  our  situation  in  Wady  Qadees 
must  be  looked  at,  if  we  would  view  it  fairly.  By  our  contract 
with  Shaykh  Musleh,  the  whole  Teeyahah  tribe  was  pledged  to 
our  protection  until  we  were  safe  at  Hebron ; and  here  we  were 
provoking  a conflict  with  the  ’Azazimeh,  who  were  at  enmity  with 
the  Teeyahah.  Our  pledge  to  acquit  our  escort  of  all  blame  in 
case  of  loss  or  harm  to  us,  could  not  relieve  the  young  shaykhs  of 
a sense  of  responsibility  for  our  safety  while  we  were  in  the  care 
of  their  tribe.  For  their  own  sakes,  as  well  as  for  ours,  they 
dreaded  an  encounter  with  the  jealous  and  quarrelsome  ’Azazimeh, 
which  might  re-open  a blood-feud  between  the  tribes,  or,  at  the 
best,  subject  the  Teeyahah  to  the  charge  of  a breach  of  the  laws  of 
hospitality  in  allowing  travelers  under  their  guidance  to  be  robbed 
or  harmed. 

Our  dragoman  understood  the  case  on  both  sides.  He  appre- 


1 A Pilgrimage , I.  334. 


2 Crescent  and  Cross,  I.  118. 


2G8 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


ciated  the  fears  of  the  Teeyahah,  and  he  also  recognized  our 
willingness  to  waive  all  claim  on  them  for  the  time  being.  His 
aim  was,  therefore,  to  see  that  in  case  of  a meeting  with  the 
’Azazimeh,  there  should  be  nothing,  at  the  worst,  beyond  robbery 
— or  tax-collecting.  His  counsel  to  us  was,  to  attempt  no  resistance 
in  such  a case.  “ If  they  ask  for  your  coat,  give  it  them  ; and  so 
give  them  everything/7  he  said.  And  this  put  a new  meaning  into 
the  words  of  the  Oriental  Book  of  books,  concerning  non-resist- 
ance while  on  a peaceful  mission : “ Him  that  taketh  away  thy 
cloak  forbid  not  to  take  thy  coat  also.  Give  to  every  man  that 
asketh  of  thee  ; and  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy  goods,  ask  them 
not  again.771  To  have  resisted  the  ’Azazimeh  by  force,  had  we 
met  them  that  day,  would  have  been  not  brave,  but  brutal.  It 
would  have  been  the  smugglers7  resistance  of  the  excise  officers, 
rather  than  the  travelers7  defense  against  waylaying  robbers. 

Moreover,  apart  from  the  tax-collecting  from  intruding  stran- 
gers, there  is  more  or  less  danger  of  a bloody  encounter  when 
Arabs  of  one  tribe  invade  the  territory  of  another,  especially  when, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Teeyahah  and  the  ’Azazimeh  at  this  time, 
there  is  ill-feeling  between  the  tribes.  The  experiences  of  such 
men  as  Palmer,  and  Conder,  and  Holland,  show  that  the  idea  of 
danger  from  hostile  Arabs  is  not  wholly  an  imaginary  one. 
Palmer  tells  of  his  laughing,  on  one  occasion,  over  Sulayman’s 
“real  or  assumed  terrors77  at  the  thought  of  venturing  into  an 
enemy’s  territory  not  very  far  north  of  this;  and  afterwards  find- 
ing that  “Suleiman’s  fears  had  not  been  unfounded,77  when  he 
went  on  under  pressure,  against  his  judgment  and  protest.  “Had 
we  met  any  of  the  hostile  party,”  says  Palmer,  in  recording  the 
visit,  “'these  notes  would  in  all  probability  never  have  been 
written.” 2 Conder,  as  he  approached  this  region  from  the  north, 
in  the  spring  of  1877,  said:3  “News  of  a serious  fight  near  Beer- 


i Luke  6 : 29,  30. 


1 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  392. 


3 Tent  Work  in  Pal.,  II.,  172. 


TRACES  OF  OLD-TIME  OCCUPANCY . 


269 


sheba,  in  which  seven  hundred  Arabs  were  killed  and  wounded, 
[the  number  of  casualties  was  probably  an  Arab  estimate]  deter- 
mined us  to  set  our  faces  northwards  ” for  the  time  being.  Hol- 
land, as  has  been  already  mentioned,1  felt  that  it  was  quite  unsafe 
for  him  to  venture  into  this  region,  in  1878,  in  view  of  the  hostili- 
ties then  in  progress  between  the  Arabs.  And  since  my  own  visit 
there,  Mr.  Edward  L.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia,  having  with  him 
my  old  dragoman,  and  also  the  escort  of  a Terabeen  Shaykh,  was 
quite  unable  to  enter  the  ’Azazimeh  region  near  Beersheba,  being 
driven  off  with  violence.  In  fact  my  later  judgment  is,  that  the 
young  shaykhs  had  a truer  estimate  of  the  dangers  of  our  under- 
taking, than  we  whom  they  accompanied.  But,  danger  or  no 
danger,  we  pushed  ahead ! 

10.  TRACES  OF  OLD-TIME  OCCUPANCY. 

Wady  Qadees  is  an  extensive,  hill -encircled,  irregular-surfaced 
plain,  several  miles  wide,  and  said  by  Owdy  to  be  a short  day’s 
journey  long  from  west  to  east,  or  from  north  of  west  to  south  of 
east.  It  is  certainly  large  enough  to  have  furnished  a camping- 
ground  for  Kedor-la’omer’s  army,  or  for  all  the  host  of  Israel. 
East  of  it  is  Jebel  Qadees.  At  its  southeast  is  Jebel  Mu’arrb,  or 
Muarib.  Southerly  and  southwesterly  is  Jebel  Hawwadeh. 
Northerly  is  Has  Fasuah,  or  Fasooah.  Northwesterly  is  Jebel 
Mawweeqa,  or  Miawaykah.  Or,  I should  say,  these  are  the 
names  given  me  by  our  Arabs,  as  I understood  them  by  sound. 
I report  them  for  what  they  may  prove  to  be  worth  to  subsequent 
travelers  as  landmarks  of  the  region.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
several  of  the  wadies  we  had  crossed.  Of  the  mountains,  only 
Jebel  Qadees  was  already  noted  on  any  map;  and  that  inaccu- 
rately. 

Along  the  middle  of  Wady  Qadees,  is  an  extensive  water  bed, 


1 See  page  233/,  supra. 


270 


KADESIRBARNEA. 


of  unusual  fertility  for  the  desert.  Rich  fields  of  wheat  and  barley 
covered  a large  portion  of  this.  From  its  being  still  moist  after 
the  winter  rain-flow,  it  was  evident  that  the  seed  of  the  now  grow- 
ing grain  had  been  sown  while  the  water  covered  the  ground: 
bread  cast  upon  the  waters,  to  be  found  after  many  days.1  There 
were  artificial  ridges  to  retain  and  utilize  the  rain-fall,  for  irriga- 
tion. We  saw  one  large  grain-magazine  dug  into  the  ground,  with 
a mound  heaped  above  it,  somewhat  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Egyptian  granaries  shown  in  the  tomb  picture-galleries  of  the 
Pharaohs.2  The  lintel  of  the  doorway  of  this  granary  was  a large 
tree  trunk — larger  than  vre  should  look  for  in  the  desert  now-a- 
days. 

Again  we  came  to  an  uncovered  pit  or  dry  cistern,  ten  or  twelve 
feet  across  it,  and  some  six  feet  or  more  deep,  walled  up  inside 
with  stone,  or  stoned-up,  to  the  surface  level,  and  above  this 
banked  around  with  earth.  At  the  bottom  of  this  pit  were  remains 
of  a fire.  It  was  unlike  either  a grain-magazine  or  an  ordinary 
Arab  cistern.  Our  Arabs  said  it  wras  a memorial  of  a war  between 
tribes;  whatever  they  may  have  meant  by  that.  When  I made 
these  notes  of  this  cistern  and  the  granary,  I did  not  know  that 
Jebel  Hawwadeh  meant  the  “ Mountains  of  the  Cisterns,  or  Reser- 
voirs ; ” nor  did  Professor  Palmer  know  of  their  existence  when  he 
gave  me  the  meaning  of  that  name. 

Along  the  rolling  foot-hills  of  the  ranges  northward,  we  found 
cairns  and  circles  of  stone,  which  could  hardly  be  other  than  re- 
mains of  dwellings  of  a pre-historie  age.  Soon  after  entering  the 
wady,  we  found  a section  of  a marble  column-shaft  of  a later  date, 
yet  evidently  ancient.  It  was  three  feet  long  by  nine  and  a-half 
inches  in  diameter,  and  had  been  finished  with  fluted  rings,  similar 
to  the  columns  found  by  Palmer  at  El-’Aujeh,  not  far  north  of 
this,  “ surrounded  wTith  rings  which  give  them  the  appearance  of 


1 Eccles.  11 : l. 


2 See  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians , I.,  371. 


HOPE  DEFERRED. 


271 


having  been  turned.” 1 Not  far  from  it  was  a square-edged,  ham- 
mered marble-block,  which  might  have  been  the  base  of  such  a 
column-shaft. 

As  we  moved  eastward,  we  found  many  lines  of  low  stone  walls 
cropping  above  the  surface  like  retaining-walls  of  an  embankment, 
or  like  low  dams,  such  as  Robinson2  and  Palmer3  have  described 
as  the  boundaries  of  Mazayri’dt,  or  “ little  plantations”  of  the 
olden  time.  In  many  places,  the  hillside  had  been  terraced  for 
cultivation ; and  again  there  were  scattered  stones  in  great  num- 
bers, which  seemed  to  have  been  once  used  for  building  purposes. 
In  fact,  there  were  signs  on  every  hand  of  a large  population  there 
in  former  times;  and  of  possibilities  of  provision  for  it. 


11.  HOPE  DEFERRED. 

About  12  o’clock,  an  hour  and  a-half  after  descending  the  slope 
of  Jebel  Hawwadeh,  we  came  to  a ridge,  or  series  of  rolling  gravel 
hills,  which  seemed  to  bound  the  fertile  portion  of  the  wady. 
There  now  stretched  before  us  a rough,  stone-covered  plain,  more 
like  the  ordinary  desert-waste,  but  still  called  Wady  Qadees. 

The  heat  of  the  sun  at  mid-day  was  intense.  Our  Arabs  had 
not  provided  themselves  with  water  for  the  journey,  and  with  their 
wonted  freedom  and  improvidence  they  had  drunk  copiously  from 
our  dragoman’s  one  leather  bottle  (not  a large  water-skin,  but  a 
small  “zemzemieh”),  and  as  that  had  sprung  a leak  on  the  way, 
it  was  now  empty.  All  signs  of  water  were  being  left  behind  us. 

1  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  369. 

2  It  was  of  a short  distance  northwest  of  Wady  Qadees,  that  Robinson  wrote: 
“Across  the  whole  tract  the  remains  of  long  ranges  of  low  stone  walls  were  visible* 
which  probably  once  served  as  the  division  of  cultivated  fields.  The  Arabs  call  them 
el-Muzeiri’at,  ‘little  plantations.’  We  afterwards  saw  many  such  walls,  which  obvi- 
ously were  not  constructed  by  the  present  race  of  Arab  inhabitants ; but  must  be 
referred  back  to  an  earlier  period.”  (Bib.  Res.,  I.,  190/.) 

3  See  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  347. 


272 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


In  our  front,  beyond  the  plain  we  were  traversing,  glared  the 
dazzling  chalk  hills,  without  any  apparent  opening  for  a possible 
water-course.  As  we  were  all  the  time  moving  farther  away  from 
our  caravan  route,  and  deeper  into  the  enemy’s  territory,  with  the 
face  of  the  country  increasing  in  desolateness,  matters  assumed  a 
very  serious  aspect. 

Again  and  again,  in  answer  to  our  questions,  Owdy  insisted  that 
we  were  “just  coming  to  the  wells;”  but  at  length,  in  spite  of 
myself,  I began  to  share  the  anxiety  of  the  young  shaykhs,  and  to 
question  in  my  mind  whether  after  all  Owdy  knew  the  region  as 
well  as  he  professed  to,  and  was  really  guiding  us  faithfully. 

At  all  events,  if  this  were  the  Wilderness  of  Kadesh,  into  which 
the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  was  re-gathered  at  the  close  of 
its  period  of  wanderings,  I could  no  longer  wonder  that  “ the 
people  chode  with  Moses,”  saying,  “ Why  have  ye  brought  up  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord  into  this  wilderness,  that  we  and  our 
cattle  should  die  there  ? ...  It  is  no  place  of  seed,  or  of  figs,  or 
of  vines,  or  of  pomegranates ; neither  is  there  any  water  to 
drink.”1  That  was  my  idea  of  it,  just  then. 

13.  THE  LOST  SITE  RE-FOUND. 

But  we  kept  up,  and  kept  on;  and  at  1.30,  after  nearly  three 
hours  of  moving  in  the  wady,  we  suddenly  turned  sharply  to  the 
right,  at  a scarcely  noticed  angle  of  the  low  limestone  hill-range 
we  had  been  approaching;  and  almost  immediately,  the  long- 
sought  wells  of  Qadees  were  before  our  eyes. 

It  was  a marvelous  sight!  Out  from  the  barren  and  desolate 
stretch  of  the  burning  desert-waste,  we  had  come  with  magical 
suddenness  into  an  oasis  of  verdure  and  beauty,  unlooked  for  and 
hardly  conceivable  in  such  a region.  A carpet  of  grass  covered 
the  ground.  Fig  trees,  laden  with  fruit  nearly  ripe  enough  for 


1 Num.  20 : 1-5. 


THE  LOST  SITE  RE- FOUND. 


273 


eating,  were  along  the  shelter  of  the  southern  hillside.  Shrubs 
and  flowers  showed  themselves  in  variety  and  profusion.  Run- 
ning water  gurgled  under  the  waving  grass.  We  had  seen  nothing 
like  it  since  leaving  Wady  Fayran;  nor  was  it  equalled  in  loveli- 
ness of  scene  by  any  single  bit  of  landscape,  of  like  extent,  even 
there. 

Standing  out  from  the  earth-covered  limestone  hills  at  the 
northeastern  sweep  of  this  picturesque  recess,  was  to  be  seen  the 
“ large  single  mass,  or  a small  hill,  of  solid  rock,”1  which  Row- 
lands looked  at  as  the  cliff  [SeVa)  smitten  by  Moses,  to  cause  it  to 
“give  forth  his  water,”2  when  its  flowing  stream  had  been  ex- 
hausted. From  underneath  this  ragged  spur  of  the  northeasterly 
mountain  range,  issued  the  now  abundant  stream. 

A circular  well,  stoned-up  from  the  bottom  with  time-worn 
limestone  blocks,  was  the  first  receptacle  of  the  water.  A marble 
watering  trough  was  near  this  well — better  finished  than  the 
troughs  at  Beersheba,  but  of  like  primitive  workmanship.  The 
mouth  of  this  well  was  only  about  three  feet  across  it,  and  the 
water  came  to  within  three  or  four  feet  of  the  top.  A little  dis- 
tance westerly  from  this  well,  and  down  the  slope,  was  a second 
well,  stoned-up  much  like  the  first,  but  of  greater  diameter;  and 
here  again  was  a marble  watering  trough.  A basin  or  pool  of 
water  larger  than  either  of  the  wells,  but  not  stoned- up  like  them, 
was  seemingly  the  principal  watering  place.  It  was  a short  dis- 
tance southwesterly  from  the  second  well,  and  it  looked  as  if  it 
and  the  two  wells  might  be  supplied  from  the  same  subterranean 
source — the  springs  under  the  Rock.  Around  the  margin  of  this 
pool,  as  also  around  the  stoned  wells,  camel  and  goat  dung — as  if 
of  flocks  and  herds  for  centuries — was  trodden  down  and  comming- 
led with  the  limestone  dust  so  as  to  form  a solid  plaster-bed. 
Another  and  yet  larger  pool,  lower  down  the  slope,  was  supplied 

1 Williams’s  Holy  City,  p.  490  /.  2 Num.  20 : 8. 

18 


274 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


with  water  by  a stream  which  rippled  and  cascaded  along  its  nar- 
row bed  from  the  upper  pool ; and  yet  beyond  this,  westward,  the 
water  gurgled  away  under  the  grass,  as  we  had  met  it  when  we 
came  in,  and  finally  lost  itself  in  the  parching  wady  from  which 
this  oasis  opened.1  The  water  itself  was  remarkably  pure  and 
sweet;  unequalled  by  any  we  had  found  after  leaving  the  Nile. 

There  was  a New  England  look  to  this  oasis,  especially  in  the 
flowers  and  grass  and  weeds ; quite  unlike  anything  we  had  seen 
in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai.  Bees  were  humming  there,  and  birds 
were  flitting  from  tree  to  tree.  Enormous  ant  hills  made  of  green 
grass-seed,  instead  of  sand,  were  numerous.  As  we  came  into  the 
wady  we  had  started  up  a rabbit,  and  had  seen  larks  and  quails. 
It  was,  in  fact,  hard  to  realize  that  we  were  in  the  desert,  or  even 
near  it.  The  delicious  repose  of  the  spot,  after  our  journey  over 
the  arid  gravel-waste  under  the  blazing  mid-day  sun,  was  most 
refreshing.  The  water  itself  was  hardly  less  of  a blessing  to  us, 
than  to  the  Israelites  when  it  flowed  and  murmured  anew  for  them 
after  their  murmurings.  We  seated  ourselves  in  the  delightful 
shade  of  one  of  the  hills  not  far  from  the  wells,  and  enjoyed  our 
lunch,  with  the  music  of  brook  and  bees  and  birds  sounding  pleas- 
antly in  our  ears.  Our  Arabs  seemed  to  feel  the  soothing  influ- 
ences of  the  place-;  and  to  have  lost  all  fear  of  the  ’Azazimeh, 
even  when  the  danger  from  them  was  probably  greatest.  After  a 
brief  rest  on  the  grass,  they  all  stripped,  and  plunged  into  the 
lower  and  larger  pool  for  a bath. 

One  thing  was  sure : all  that  Rowlands  had  said  of  this  oasis 
was  abundantly  justified  by  the  facts.  His  enthusiasm  and  his 
active  imagination  had  not  colored  in  the  slightest  his  picture  of 
the  scene  now  before  us.  The  sneers  which  other  travelers  had  in- 

1 In  writing  up  this  description  from  my  hurried  notes  made  on  the  spot,  I find 
room  for  question  at  one  or  two  points,  as  to  the  distance  and  bearings  of  the  several 
wells  and  pools  one  from  another,  but  I give  the  facts  at  these  points,  as  accurately  as 
I can  recall  them. 


A BLOODLESS  ENCOUNTER 


275 


dulged  in,  over  the  creation  of  his  heated  fancies,  were  the  result 
of  their  own  lack  of  knowledge — and  charity.  And  as  to  the 
name  of  the  oasis,  about  which  Robinson  and  others  were  so  in- 
credulous, it  is  Qadees  as  it  was  written  for  me  in  Arabic 

by  my  intelligent  Arab  dragoman,  a similar  name  to  that  of  Jeru- 
salem, El-Quds,  the  Holy  ; the  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  Kadesh. 


13.  A BLOODLESS  ENCOUNTER. 

After  a rest  of  a little  more  than  an  hour  in  this  tempting  fairy- 
land retreat,  we  half-reluctantly  made  preparations  for  a new  start 
in  our  explorings.  As  our  dragoman  attempted  to  mount  his 
dromedary,  the  restive  animal  sprang  up  and  shot  off  by  himself, 
as  if  the  ’Azazimeh  were  after  him,  scattering  the  crockery  of  the 
lunch-basket  right  and  left  as  he  went.  It  was  with  some  diffi- 
culty that  the  dromedary  was  re-captured  ; and  then  the  good- 
natured  dragoman  consoled  himself  for  his  broken  dishes,  by  the 
thought  of  the  wonder  they  would  occasion  the  ’Azazimeh  who 
were  next  at  the  wells.  They  may  have  already  constructed  a new 
theory  of  evolution,  on  the  strength  of  them. 

It  was  about  3 o’clock  that  we  moved  out  into  the  open  wady 
westward,  on  our  way  to  find  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat — the  well  which 
so  many  have  supposed  Rowlands  mistook  for  ’Ayn  Qadees.  After 
moving  westward  about  twenty  minutes,  we  diverged  to  the  right 
from  our  incoming  route,  and  bore  to  the  north  of  west.  Going 
on  in  that  direction  nearly  forty  minutes,  we  turned  sharply  to  the 
north,  and  began  the  ascent  of  a mountain  which  confronted  us. 

This  was  about  4 o’clock  in  the  afternoon.  Hardly  had  we 
begun  this  ascent,  before  the  quick  eye  of  Owdy  caught  the  far-off 
sight  of  a caravan  coming  over  the  lofty  pass  toward  which  we 
were  making.  “ Jemel ! ” (camel !)  11  ’Azazimeh  ! ” were  words 
quickly  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth  of  our  Arabs ; and  all  the 


276 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


old  fears  of  Hamdh  and  his  followers  were  back  again  in  full 
force.  Looking  up  the  mountain  side,  I could  see  no  sign  of  life 
there.  I thought  there  must  be  a mistake.  But  no,  Owdy’s  eyes 
had  not  deceived  him.  It  was  soon  evident  to  us  all,  that  a camel- 
train  more  extensive  than  ours  was  approaching  us  ; although  the 
camels  as  yet  seemed  no  larger  than  dogs,  and  my  first  impression 
was  that  they  could  only  be  goats. 

Our  Arabs  wore  anxious  faces.  They  asked  us  to  keep  close 
together,  as  we  moved  forward  to  the  encounter.  Cheering  words 
were  in  order,  to  keep  their  spirits  up ; and  these  we  gave  freely ; 
for  we  could  not  share  all  the  fears  of  our  escort.  Gradually  the 
two  trains  neared  each  other.  In  the  train  approaching  us,  were 
fifteen  camels,  including  two  young  ones ; also  quite  a number  of 
goats.  There  were  eight  ’Azazimeh  men  ; just  our  number ; and 
about  the  same  number  of  women  and  children.  But  some  of  the 
men  were  old,  and  the  party  as  a whole  was  more  encumbered  than 
ours ; and  it  had  more  to  lose.  Its  men  were  evidently  not  in- 
clined to  provoke  a fight.  It  even  looked  very  much  as  if  they 
were  more  afraid  of  our  Arabs,  than  our  Arabs  were  of  them — if, 
indeed,  that  were  possible.  No  blood  was  shed  ; not  a blow  was 
struck  ; there  was  no  robbery.  The  ’Azazimeh  and  the  Teeyaheh 
held  their  breaths,  as  they  passed  each  other  on  the  mountain  side, 
and  it  was  evident  that  both  parties  were  greatly  relieved  when 
they  were  fairly  out  of  one  another’s  sight. 

The  lofty  mountain-pass  before  us  was  said  to  be  Naqb  Hawy, 
apparently  the  same  name  as  that  of  the  well-known  pass  west  of 
the  plain  of  Er-Bahah  before  Mount  Sinai : Pass  of  the  Winds,  or 
Sky  Pass.  The  fact  that  this  is  the  direct  route  northward  out  of 
Wady  Qadees  effectually  puts  at  rest  the  objection,  so  vehemently 
and  often  urged  against  the  identification  of  this  site  with  Kadesh- 
barnea,  that  there  is  no  mountain  ascent  from  it  toward  Hebron. 
Bobinson  said  emphatically  on  this  point,  as  against  Bowlands’s 
identification:  “ There  is  no  mountain  near  by,  by  which  the  spies 


A PLACE  OF  PILGRIMAGE. 


277 


could  ascend  into  Palestine;  nor  by  which  the  people  could  go  up 
to  Arad,  where  they  were  discomfited.” 1 And,  as  has  been  already 
shown,2  a host  of  later  writers,  as  unfamiliar  as  Robinson  with  the 
real  facts  in  the  case,  have  followed  in  reiteration  of  this  error.  In 
truth,  there  could  not  be  a closer  correspondence  than  here  with 
the  inspired  record,  as  to  the  way  out  of  Kadesh  northward.  “Get 
you  up  this  way  Southward  [or,  Negebward],”  said  Moses  to  the 
spies,  at  Kadesh,  “and  go  up  into  the  mountain.”3  “So  they 
went  up,”  as  we  were  now  going  up,  along  that  mountain 
pass.  “ They  ascended  by  the  South  [by  way  of  the  Negeb],  and 
came  unto  Hebron.”  4 And  so  again,  the  rebellious  people,  smarting 
under  their  sentence  of  forty  years  wandering,  as  they  lay  in  their 
camp  at  Kadesh-barnea,  “ presumed  to  go  up  unto  the  hill  top  ” 
without  the  Divine  guidance;  “and  they  rose  up  early  in  the 
morning,  and  gat  them  up  into  the  top  of  the  mountain,  saying, 
Lo,  we  be  here,  and  will  go  up  unto  the  place  [the  land]  which 
the  Lord  hath  promised.”5  And  it  must  have  been  up  just  such 
a mountain  way  as  this,  that  they  went  from  the  wady  below — the 
Wady  Qadees. 


14.  A PLACE  OF  PILGRIMAGE. 

We  were  nearly  an  hour  clambering  this  mountain.  Passing 
the  naqb,  we  came  to  a slowly  descending  slope,  called  by  Owdy, 
Wady  Umm  ’A'sheen.  On  the  rocks,  along  the  sides  of  the  road- 
way here,  were  numerous  inscriptions  in  a character  similar  to 
those  in  Wady  el-Mukatteb,  or  “Wady  of  the  Writings,”  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Mount  Serbal.  Inscriptions  in  this  character  are 
always  noteworthy,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  whatever  may  be 
thought  as  to  their  date  they  are  quite  generally  supposed  to  indi- 
cate, by  their  presence,  a place  of  ancient  pilgrimages.  They  were 

1 Bib.  Res.,  II.,  194,  note. 

3Num.  13:  17. 


4 Num.  13:  22. 


2 See  pages  221-229,  supra. 
5 Num.  14:  40,  44. 


278 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


certainly  spoken  of  as  ancient,  as  early  as  A.  d.  535  and  it  is 
even  thought  that  they  were  referred  to  by  Diodorus  Siculus,  just 
before  the  Christian  era.1 2  Their  date  has  been  estimated  variously, 
all  the  way  from  the  period  of  the  Hebrew  exodus  to  the  fourth 
Christian  century.3  It  is  a question  whether  their  writers  were 
chiefly  Christians,  Jews,  or  Pagans;  although.it  would  seem  that 
all  three  classes  were  represented  among  them.  What  sacred  place 
may  have  been  here  on  this  mountain  top?  Is  it,  possibly,  the 
grave  of  Miriam?  She  died  at  Kadesh,  “and  was  buried  there.”4 
And  Josephus  affirms,  as  showing  the  accepted  tradition  in  his 
day  : “ They  bury  her  publicly  at  great  expense  on  a certain  moun- 
tain which  they  call  Sin  ” 5 — or  Shin. 

Indications  of  a former  population  abounded,  in  stone  walls  and 
primitive  building  ruins ; and  it  was  evident  from  the  camel  tracks, 
that  this  old-time  route,  the  “ Way  of  the  Spies,”6  was  still  much 
traveled. 


15.  LOST  IN  THE  DESERT. 

At  5.15  we  descended  into  Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat.  This 
wady  was  more  like  Wady  Fayran  than  any  we  had  seen,  of  like 
extent,  since  leaving  the  lower  peninsula.  Shrubs  and  trees  were 
in  comparative  luxuriance.  One  tarfa  tree  had  a trunk  four  feet 
in  circumference.  Doves,  quail,  and  snipe,  were  numerous.  From 
the  main  wady,  which  lay  east  and  west,  several  wrady  spurs  ran 

1 By  Cosmas,  surnamed  Indicopleustes,  a traveled  monk  of  the  sixth  century,  who, 
at  Alexandria,  wrote  “A  Christian  Topography  Embracing  the  Whole  World.” 

2 See  Tuch’s  Ein  und  zwanzig  Sinaitische  Inschriften , pp.  31,  46. 

3 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  128/.,  and  Note  XIX.,  p.  593  /.;  and  Bartlett’s 
Egypt  to  Pal.,  pp.  226-232  for  the  views  of  various  scholars  on  this  point;  also  see 
Tuch,  as  above;  Beer’s  Inscriptions  Veteres;  Sharpe’s  Sinaitic  Inscriptions,  and 
Forster’s  Israel  in  the  Wilderness,  and  other  works  (the  works  of  the  last  two  authors 
are  chiefly  valuable  as  curiosities). 

4 Num.  20:  1.  5 Antiquities,  Book  IV.,  chap.  4,  $ 6.  6 Num.  21 : 1. 


LOST  IN  THE  DESERT. 


279 


up  among  the  hills  northerly  and  northeasterly.  Into  one  of  these 
Owdy  led  the  way,  in  confidence  that  the  wells  were  there. 

It  certainly  seemed  as  if  wells  were  to  be  looked  for  in  that 
wady  spur;  for  vegetation  was  rich  and  abundant  there;  but  it 
was  followed  to  its  head  in  vain.  Owdy  was  evidently  greatly 
disappointed  ; and  finding  his  memory  at  fault,  he  was  at  once 
confused  and  disturbed.  He  alone  had  ever  been  in  this  region  ; 
and  that,  many  years  before.  The  young  shaykhs,  like  the  rest  of 
us,  had  depended  wholly  on  him  as  a guide.  When  he  confessed 
that  he  had  lost  his  way,  a new  panic  seized  the  party.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Bed'ween  are  always  cool-headed  and 
confident  as  desert  travelers.  An  experienced  observer  of  them  has 
said : “ Their  faculty  of  finding  their  way  across  the  deserts  has 
been  much  exaggerated.  Bedawin,  of  course,  know  their  own 
district  well,  and  that  district  is  often  a large  one ; but  once  take 
them  out  of  it,  and  they  are  very  nearly  helpless.”1  We  found  it 
so  with  Owdy  and  the  young  shaykhs  in  Wady  el-’Ayn. 

And,  at  the  best,  our  situation  just  then  was  by  no  means  assur- 
ing, even  to  one  of  a cool  head,  and  of  strong  nerves.  Night  was 
coming  on  rapidly.  We  were  in  an  enemy’s  country,  not  knowing 
the  way  out  of  it.  We  were  practically  without  food  or  water. 
Our  escort  and  guide  were  terror-stricken.  Our  dragoman  was 
in  despair.  There  was  need  of  courage,  and  of  effort  to  impart 
courage,  on  our  part.  Then  was  when  old  army  experiences  were 
of  value.  And  just  then  there  was  actually  a certain  comfort  in 
the  lesson  of  the  forty  days  fast  of  Dr.  Tanner  (the  great  Ameri- 
can faster),  which  had  concluded  safely  shortly  before  my  leaving 
home.  He  had  shown  that  a strong-willed  man  need  not  die  of 
starvation  because  of  a few  weeks’  abstinence.  We  took  heart  in 
the  memory  of  his  continuance.  We  spoke  words  of  cheer  to  the 
Arabs  determinedly.  My  counsel  was,  that  if  Owdy  no  longer 


Bedouins  of  Euphrates , p.  389. 


280 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


knew  the  way,  we  should  stop  where  we  were  for  the  night,  in- 
stead of  groping  blindly  in  the  darkness  ; and  then  in  the  morning 
we  should  have  the  full  day  to  find  our  way  to  the  open  country, 
with  its  familiar  landmarks.  Or,  if  Owdy  would  look  farther  for 
some  remembered  feature  of  the  region,  in  the  still  remaining 
light,  we  would  follow  him  hopefully  until  the  night  had  fairly 
shut  in.  He  decided  on  the  latter  course,  and  we  pushed  west- 
ward. Half  an  hour  brought  us  to  another  spur  of  the  wady, 
running  northerly,  and  then  curving  northeasterly ; and  instantly 
an  exclamation  of  delight  from  Owdy  assured  us  that  once  more  he 
knew  where  we  were ; so  that  we  were  no  longer  lost. 


16.  AN  ANCIENT  VILLAGE. 

Near  the  entrance  of  this  wady  spur,  as  we  turned  into  it,  we 
saw  on  a low  hill-top  at  our  right,  the  remains  of  a massive  stone 
structure,  quite  unlike  any  other  ruins  we  had  seen  in  our  journey- 
ing. The  rude  cairns  and  stone  circles,  which  we  had  found  all 
the  way  along  during  the  day,  were  numerous  on  the  hillsides  of 
Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  but  this  was  very  different  from  those. 
It  was  of  huge  blocks  of  cut  or  closely-hammered  stone,  laid  in 
even  courses,  and  laid  double;  one  wrall  immediately  inside  of 
another.  It  was  quadrangular,  about  seventy  feet  by  seventy-five, 
enclosing  an  open  court ; and  its  double  walls  rose  some  six  feet 
above  the  ground.  It  was  clearly  an  ancient  ruin,  although  by  no 
means  so  primitive  as  the  circles  and  cairns. 

Either  at  this  point,  or  at  the  wady  spur  we  had  first  explored, 
or  again  at  both  and  along  between  the  two,  there  were  existing 
ruins  enough  to  mark  the  “ Hazar,”  or  “ Hezron  ; ” or  the  “ Place 
of  Enclosure,”  or  the  “ Stone-encircled  Place,”  which,  according  to 
the  Bible  record,  lay  between  Kadesh-barnea  and  *Adar ; or  be- 
tween Qadees  and  Qadayrat.  In  Numbers  34  : 4,  “ Hazar  ” is 
linked  with  “ Adar”;  in  Joshua  15:  3,  it  is  given  separately  as 


AN  ANCIENT  VILLAGE. 


281 


“ Hezron.”  The  Septuagint  renders  it,  in  the  first  instance,1  the 
“fold,”  or  the  “enclosure”;  the  Vulgate  renders  it  “ a villa  [or, 
a village]  called  Adar.”2 

Palmer  has  thrown  added  light  on  this  word  as  used  in  the  Old 
Testament  story,  by  aid  of  the  experience  of  his  friend  Tyrwhitt- 
Drake  in  Morocco,  among  the  African  Arabs  who  originally  emi- 
grated from  Arabia,  and  have  retained  many  of  their  ancestral 
customs.  When  these  Arabs  are  in  a region  where  they  are  liable 
to  attacks  from  enemies,  they  pitch  their  tents  in  a circle,  with  their 
cattle  and  goods  in  the  centre  : “ The  whole  is  then  fenced  in  with 
a low  wall  of  stones,  in  which  are  inserted  thick  bundles  of  thorny 
acacia,  the  tangled  branches  and  long  needle-like  spikes  forming  a 
perfectly  impenetrable  hedge  around  the  encampment.  These  are 
called  Dowdrs , and  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  they  are  the 
same  with  the  Hazeroth , or  ‘ Field  Enclosures/  used  by  the  pastoral 
tribes  mentioned  in  the  Bible.”3 

Again,  Mills4  describes  the  remains  of  ancient  “ circular  enclo- 
sures of  loose  stones  ” on  Mount  Ebal,  “ some  standing,  in  a toler- 
able state  of  preservation,  while  others  are  partly  demolished,  with 
the  stones  scattered  all  around.”  “ One  of  these  enclosures,”  he 
says,  “ measured  210  feet  in  diameter,  and  some  others  are  of  simi- 
lar dimensions.”  In  his  opinion,  these  structures  “ belonged  to  the 
aborigines,  or  perhaps  to  the  Israelitish  conquerors  of  the  time  of 
Joshua.”  And  he  thinks  that  “ the  Hebrew  word  ( Tchatser ),5 

generally  rendered  court  or  village,  means  in  its  topographical 
sense  a village  exactly  corresponding  to  what  these  might  have 
been — namely,  a stone  wall  having  tent-cloth  drawn  over  it.” 6 

1 At  Num.  34:  4:  elg  eiravTuv  ’A  pad;  eis  epaulin  Arad.  2 “ Viliam  nomine  Adar  A 

3 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  321  /.  4 Nablus  and  Mod.  Samar.,  p.  10/. 

5 Robinson’s  Gesenius  (s.v.  says,  that  this  word  is  applied  to  the  “movable 

villages  or  encampments  of  nomadic  tribes,  who  usually  pitch  their  tents  in  a circle, 

or  so  as  to  form  an  enclosure.”  See  also  Fiirst’s  Jleb.  u.  Chald.  Worterb at  the 

same  word.  e gee  also,  p.  314  /. 


282 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Naturally  those  nomads  whose  range  lay  along  the  lower  border 
of  Canaan  would  find  the  need  of  such  protection  to  their  encamp- 
ments ; and  we  are  distinctly  told  of  the  people  who  occupied 
the  region  of  the  modern  ’Azazimeh,  that  they  “ dwelt  in  Haze- 
rim,”  1 all  the  way  along  to  Gaza.  The  remains  of  those  Hazerim, 
in  exceptional  prominence,  are  to  be  seen  to-day  in  Wady  ’Ayn  el- 
Qadayrat,  and  elsewhere  along  that  line.  Their  place  would  form 
a notable  landmark  ; inasmuch  as  the  same  state  of  things  which 
rendered  them  a necessity  there  at  one  time,  would  make  their  con- 
tinuance there  a necessity. 

17.  AYN  EL-QADAYRAT  DISCOVERED. 

The  signs  of  fertility  in  this  spur  were  far  greater  than  in  the 
main  wTady.  Grass  and  shrubs  and  trees  were  in  luxuriance,  and 
the  luxuriance  increased  at  every  step  as  we  pushed  on.  One  tree, 
called  by  our  Arabs  a “ seyal  ” (or  acacia),  but  not  showing  thorns 
like  the  acacias  of  the  lower  desert,  exceeded  in  size  any  tree  of  the 
sort  we  had  ever  seen.  Its  trunk  was  double ; one  stock  being 
some  six  feet  in  girth ; the  other,  four  feet  and  a-half.  The  entire 
sweep  of  the  branches  was  a circumference  of  nearly  two  hundred 
and  fifty  feet,  according  to  our  pacing  of  it.  With  such  trees  as 
that  in  the  desert,  it  were  easy  enough  to  get  the  seyal,  or  shittim, 
wood,  of  suitable  size  for  the  boards  and  bars  of  the  tabernacle.2 
Still  the  luxuriance  of  vegetation  increased.  Then,  as  we  pro- 
ceeded, came  the  sound  of  flowing,  and  of  falling,  water.  A water 
channel  of  fifteen  to  twenty  yards  in  width,  its  stream  bordered 
with  reeds  or  flags,  showed  itself  at  our  feet  between  the  hills.  We 
moved  eastward  along  its  southern  border.  Above  the  gurgling 
sound  of  the  running  stream,  there  grew  more  distinct  the  rush  of 
a torrent-fall.  As  we  pressed  toward  its  source,  the  banks  of  the 


1 Deut.  2:  23. 


2 Exod.  26  : 15-29. 


'A  YET  EL-QADAYRAT  DISCOVERED. 


283 


stream  narrowed  and  rose,  and  we  clambered  them,  and  found  our 
way  through  dense  shrubbery  until  we  reached  the  bank  of  the 
fountain-basin.  There  we  looked  down  into  a pool  some  twelve  to 
fourteen  feet  below  us ; into  which  a copious  stream  rushed  from 
out  the  hillside  at  the  east,  with  a fall  of  seven  or  eight  feet.  The 
hillside  from  which  this  stream  poured  was  verdure-covered,  and 
the  stream  seemed  to  start  out  from  it,  at  five  or  six  feet  below  our 
level.  The  dense  vegetation  prevented  our  seeing  whether  the 
stream  sprang  directly  out  of  an  opening  in  the  hillside,  or  came 
down  along  a concealed  channel  from  springs  yet  farther  eastward ; 
but  the  appearance  was  of  the  former.  Waving  flags,  four  or 
five  feet  high,  bordered  this  pool,  as  they  bordered  the  channel 
below  it. 

Our  dragoman  enthusiastically  compared  the  fountain  to  that  of 
Banias,1  away  northward,  at  the  source  of  the  Jordan.  It  was  cer- 
tainly a wonderful  fountain  for  the  desert’s  border.  Its  name 
’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  ( ) the  “ Fountain  of  Omnipotence,”  or 

“ Fountain  of  God’s  Power,”  was  not  inappropriate,  in  view  of 
its  impressiveness,  bursting  forth  there  so  unexpectedly,  as  at  the 
word  of  Him  who  “ turneth  the  wilderness  into  a standing  water, 
and  dry  ground  into  watersprings.”2  No  wonder  that  this  fountain 
was  a landmark  in  the  boundary  line  of  the  possession,  which  had 
been  promised  of  God  to  his  people,  as  “ a land  of  brooks  of  water, 
of  fountains  and  depths  that  spring  out  of  valleys  and  hills.”3 
Viewed  merely  as  a desert-fountain,  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  was  even 
more  remarkable  than  ’Ayn  Qadees ; although  the  hill-encircled 
wady  watered  by  the  latter,  was  far  more  extensive  than  Wady 
’Ayn  el-Qadayrat ; and  was  suited  to  be  a place  of  protected  and 
permanent  encampment,  as  the  latter  could  not  be.  Perhaps  it 
ought  to  be  mentioned,  that  the  “ date-palms  ” which  Seetzen 

1 “ I can  hear  the  rush  of  the  fountains  of  Banias.”  (Bayard  Taylor,  in  The  Lands 
of  the  Saracen , p.  114.) 

2 Psa.  107 : 35. 


3 Deut.  8:  7. 


284 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


spoke  of  as  watered  by  this  fountain,  were  not  seen  by  us.  Yet 
they  may  have  been  elsewhere ; or  indeed,  they  may  have  existed 
in  his  day,  although  not  now  remaining. 

There  was  a peculiar  satisfaction  in  looking  at  this  remarkable 
fountain,  when  at  last  we  had  reached  it.  Yo  visit  to  it  had  been 
recorded  by  any  traveler  in  modern  times.  Seetzen1  and  Rob- 
inson,2 and  Rowlands,3  and  Bonar,4  and  Palmer,5  and  others,  had 
been  told  of  it,  and  had  reported  it  accordingly;  but  no  one  of 
them  claimed  to  have  seen  it.  In  view  of  all  that  these  travelers 
had  said,  and  after  his  own  careful  search  for  it,  up  and  down  the 
wady,  Bartlett,  (as  has  already  been  mentioned)  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  no  such  fountain  existed ; 6 that,  in  fact,  Wady  el- 
*Ayn,  the  Wady  of  the  Well,  was  a wady  without  a well.  To  put 
our  eyes  on  it,  therefore,  the  very  day  of  our  seeing  ’Ayn  Qadees, 
was  enough  to  drive  out  of  mind  all  thought  of  our  dangers  and 
worry  on  the  way  to  it.  We  congratulated  one  another  all  around; 
and  Muhammad  Ahmad  was  promised  anew  that  he  should  go 
into  that  book — “ 8 Silk  Bazar,”  and  all. 

18.  A RIDE  IN  THE  DARKNESS. 

Before  we  had  fully  satisfied  our  curiosity  in  examining  the 
fountain  and  its  surroundings,  the  moonless  night  was  suddenly 
upon  us;  there  being  almost  no  twilight  in  the  desert.  Our  drom- 
edaries had  been  left  at  the  entrance  of  this  wady  spur;  and  we 
turned  to  grope  our  way  back  to  them.  Among  the  tall  flags,  and 
the  dense  and  thorny  shrubbery,  it  was  not  an  easy  matter  to  pick 
our  way  over  the  rough  wady-bottom.  The  darkness  was,  of 
course,  much  greater,  with  the  bed  of  green  below  us,  than  in  the 
desert,  where  the  chalky  surface  made  a starry  night  comparatively 
light  about  us.  All  of  us  stumbled  more  or  less;  and  tlie  dragoman 

1 Reise,  III.,  47.  2 Bib.  Res.,  I. ,189.  3 Williams’s  Holy  City,  p.  491. 

4 Des.  of  Sinai,  p.  293.  5 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  350.  6 Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  362  ff. 


A RIDE  IN  THE  DARKNESS. 


285 


had  a fall  among  the  rocks  which  well-nigh  disabled  him.  It 
looked  for  a while  as  if  we  must  watch  with  him  there  for  the 
night.  The  Arabs  were  again  nervous  and  fearful.  The  loud 
hooting  of  an  owl  was  mistaken  by  one  of  our  party  for  the  call  of 
a human  voice;  and  its  strange  cry  added  to  the  weirdness  of  the 
time  and  place. 

It  was  with  something  of  a feeling  of  relief  that  we  once  more 
had  the  companionship  of  our  dromedaries,  and  were  weaving 
back  and  forth  on  their  humps,  at  the  accustomed  measure,  as  we 
moved  out — we  knew  not  whither.  Yet  in  that  blind  start,  in  the 
darkness,  out  of  Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  we  realized  as  never 
before  what  a comfort  to  the  Israelites  on  the  desert  must  have 
been  the  guiding  pillar  of  God’s  presence,  when  “the  Lord  went 
before  them  by  day  in  a pillar  of  a cloud,  to  lead  them  the 
way;  and  by  night  in  a pillar  of  fire,  to  give  them  light;  to  go  by 
day  and  night.” 1 

The  next  few  hours  were  wearisome  and  anxious  ones  to  us  all. 
It  was  about  7 o’clock  when  we  turned  away  from  ’Ayn  el-Q,a- 
dayrat.  Our  day  had,  already,  been  fourteen  hours  long — nearly 
twelve  from  our  leaving  camp ; and  the  nervous  strain  on  us  had 
been  severe  from  the  start.  The  night  was  chilly,  as  well  as  dark. 
Our  movements  must  be  slow  and  uncertain  at  the  best.  Owdy 
was  sure  of  the  general  direction  toward  the  caravan  route  up 
which  our  camel  train  had  moved;  but  not  knowing  just  where 
the  train  had  halted  for  the  night,  it  was  by  no  means  an  easy  task 
to  push  across  the  intervening  hills  and  wadies  in  the  darkness, 
with  any  assurance  of  directness.  There  were  rough  places  to  be 
passed;  and  our  course  must  be  zig-zagged  repeatedly,  in  order  to 
cross  some  of  the  separating  ravines,  inasmuch  as  we  were  not 
moving  in  the  line  of  any  well-traveled  route,  but  were  passing 
from  one  to  another.  In  several  instances  we  lost  the  track,  for  a 


1 Exod.  13:  21. 


286 


EADESH-BARNEA . 


season,  and  then  the  way  was  perilous.  Travelers,  Arabs,  and 
dromedaries  alike,  were  all  anxious  to  get  back  to  the  rude  trail 
again.  Stumbling  along  the  narrow  and  ill-defined  path  of  some 
rugged  hillside,  in  the  darkness  of  that  bewildering  night,  with  the 
constant  liability  to  swerve  from  it,  into  un perceived  or  dimly  seen 
dangers  at  right  or  left,  we  found  a new  meaning  in  the  prayer  of 
the  Oriental  Psalmist:  “Hold  up  my  goings  in  thy  paths,  that  my 
footsteps  slip  not.” 1 


19.  INTO  CAMP  AGAIN. 

How  we  peered  out  into  the  darkness  for  some  sign  of  the 
longed-for  camp  ! Once  we  caught  a gleam  of  the  white  tents 
just  ahead,  as  all  of  us  were  sure  when  their  keen-eyed  discoverer 
had  pointed  them  out  to  us.  What  a joy  that  was  to  us,  as  we 
hurried  toward  them  ! But  they  settled  back  into  a chalk  cliff, 
when  we  were  fairly  abreast  of  them  ; and  their  disappearance  left 
the  night  darker  and  the  way  rougher  than  ever,  until  a new  hope 
was  sprung  ahead  of  us  by  a light  that  flashed  up  suddenly  on  the 
far  horizon.  It  was  but  for  an  instant,  and  all  trace  of  it  was 
gone.  Then  there  was  another  flash  in  the  same  direction.  And 
as,  with  all  our  eyes,  we  scanned  the  horizon  thitherward,  we  saw 
a small  but  steady  light  where  the  flashes  had  fixed  our  gaze.  The 
camp  was  just  ahead.  Our  faithful  waiter,  Muhammad,  had  hung 
out  a lantern  in  the  direction  whence  he  looked  for  us,  and  had 
flashed  powder  occasionally  in  the  hope  of  its  catching  our  eyes. 
He  was  quite  as  much  relieved  by  our  shout  of  response  to  his 
signals,  as  we  by  the  sight  of  his  beacon  light ; for  he  had  been 
even  more  anxious  for  us  than  we  for  ourselves : his  imaginings  of 
danger  for  us  being  greater  and  more  constant  than  the  reality  of 
our  experiences  in  that  line. 


1 Psa.  17 : 5. 


A SECOND  DAY’S  PLAN. 


287 


A desert  camp  had  never  seemed  so  pleasant  to  us,  as  when  we 
were  fairly  in  ours  in  Wady  es-Seram,  at  10  o’clock  that  night, 
after  our  long  and  exciting  day’s  absence  from  it.  There  were  re- 
joicings and  congratulatings  on  every  side,  in  true  Oriental  style. 
We  certainly  had  a great  deal  heartier  welcome  on  our  return  from 
spying  out  Kadesh,  than  was  given  to  the  spies  of  old,  when  they 
returned  from  Canaan  to  their  camp  in  Kadesh.  And  not  even 
quails  and  manna  were  so  satisfying  to  the  Israelites,  when  they 
journeyed  toward  the  region  we  had  just  visited,  as  our  desert 
dinner  proved  to  us,  when  we  had  come  thus  far  by  the  Way  of 
the  Spies,  unmolested  by  Avim,  or  Amorites,  or  ’Azazimeh. 


20.  A SECOND  DAY’S  PLAN. 

Two  of  the  three  wells  which  had  been  so  long  in  dispute,  I had 
now  visited.  The  third  one — Qasaymeh— had  been  seen  by  many; 
and  it  was  fully  described  in  several  books  of  travel.  It  might 
seem  unnecessary  for  me  to  delay  longer  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
that.  Yet,  as  the  question  of  two  wells  or  three  had  long  been  an 
open  one,  it  was  desirable  to  set  that  point  finally  at  rest  by  per- 
sonally visiting  the  three.  Hence  it  was,  that  I planned  for  a trip 
to  the  third  well  on  the  following  morning — Thursday,  March  31. 

Wady  Qasaymeh  was  behind  us ; our  baggage  train  having 
passed  its  entrance  on  the  way  to  Wady  es-Seram,  while  we  were 
hunting  ’Ayn  Qadees.  It  was  therefore  arranged  that  once  more 
that  train  should  move  slowly  forward,  while  we  of  the  yesterday’s 
party  turned  back  to  Qasaymeh.  After  an  early  breakfast,  we 
started  southward,  taking  a route  a little  to  the  eastward  of  that 
which  our  train  had  taken  on  the  way  northward.  In  Wady 
Sabh,1  or  Sabhah,2  we  observed  on  the  hillsides,  not  only  those 
" relics  of  a primeval  people — cairns  and  dwellings  such  as  we 


1 See  Palmer’s  Map. 


2 Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan , p.  197. 


288 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


have  noticed  elsewhere  ” 1 as  common  in  this  region,  but  also  more 
or  less  of  the  “ innumerable  well-made  heaps  of  stones,  placed 
with  extreme  regularity  along  the  edges  of  the  cliffs,  and  always 
facing  the  east,”  which  Palmer2  inclines  to  identify  as  “in  some 
way  or  other  connected  with  the  worship  of  Baal  ” by  the  idolaters 
of  the  land,  before  Israel  destroyed  the  cities  of  the  South3  in  all 
this  region. 


21.  THE  THIRD  WELL  VISITED. 

Less  than  two  hours  brought  us  to  Wady  Qasaymeh  ( jUj ) 
and  its  familiar  wells.  Robinson 4 describes  these  wells  as  “ sev- 
eral pits  of  bluish,  brackish  water,  dug  a few  feet  deep  in  a bed  of 
blue  clay,  surrounded  by  an  abundance  of  coarse  bulrushes  and 
rank  vegetation.”  Palmer5  says:  “ They  are  not  deep  wells,  nor 
springs  proper,  but  a few  themdil,  or  shallow  pits ; ” and  their  posi- 
tion “is  marked  by  a melancholy  looking  bed  of  rushes.”  Bartlett,6 
thinking  that  these  wells  were  in  Wady  Qadees,  is  fuller  and  more 
enthusiastic  in  their  description ; yet  all  that  he  says  is  borne  out 
by  the  facts  as  I observed  them,  although  his  estimate  of  their 
relative  importance  is  exaggerated,  through  his  failure  to  know  of 
the  more  remarkable  wells  near  them.  He  found  in  this  wady 
“ the  most  abundant  water  supply  ” he  saw  “ between  Nukhl  and 
Beersheba.”  When  he  was  here,  he  noted,  first,  “three  excava- 
tions in  the  sandy  soil,  each  about  seven  feet  in  diameter,  contain- 
ing water  to  the  depth  of  two  feet.  Around  these  were  smaller 
holes,  some  two  feet  in  diameter,  also  containing  water.”  Passing 
eastward  “ for  several  rods  through  a marsh  filled  with  reeds  and 
rushes,”  he  crossed  a number  of  “narrow  channels  of  standing 
water.  To  the  right,  at  this  point,  a spur  of  rock  projected  north- 

1 Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  355. 

*Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  356.  3 Josh.  10 : 36-40.  *Bib.  Res.,  I.,  190. 

bDes.  of  Exod.,  II.,  357.  6 Egypt  to  Palestine,  pp.  359-362. 


ANOTHER  LANDMARK  RECOGNIZED. 


289 


westerly  from  the  southern  embankment  of  the  wady,  and  the 
water  came  out  of  this  spur  in  moderate  quantities  and  flowed  down 
a series  of  stair  like  lodges  into  the  wady.”  Beyond  the  marshy 
ground  he  “ came  to  a rather  higher  level  of  sandy  soil,”  and 
“ found  somewhat  widely  scattered,  nine  of  the  larger  and  two  of 
the  smaller  excavations  now  opened.  In  most  of  them  the  water 
had  been  rendered  dirty  by  camels,  but  wherever  it  stood  in  a 
clean  place  it  was  clear  and  good.”  “ Over  a large  space  of  the 
higher  sandy  soil,  it  was  evidently  only  a question  of  convenience 
where  to  scoop  a hole  and  find  water.” 

All  this  we  found  substantially  as  described.  We  could  also  see 
that  the  place  was  in  a sense  “ notable  ” and  “ important ; ” for 
any  source  of  much  water  is  notable  and  important  in  “ a dry  and 
thirsty  land,  where” — as  a rule — “ no  water  is.”1  Yet  these  wells 
bore  no  comparison  with  those  we  had  seen  the  day  before.  It 
was,  however,  their  accurate  description  in  Bartlett’s  narrative, 
that  had  served  me  so  good  a turn,  in  causing  my  Arab  guides  to 
believe  that  I knew  their  country  better  than  they  did ; albeit  I 
then  supposed  these  wells  to  be  in  Wady  Qadees. 


22.  ANOTHER  LANDMARK  RECOGNIZED. 

That  this  “ Qasaymeh  ” was  the  “ ’ Azmon  ” 2 of  the  ancient 
southern  boundary  line  of  the  Land  of  Promise,  finds  strong  con- 
firmation in  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  Targums  give  “ Qesam  ”3  and 
“ Qaisam  ” 4 for  ’ Azmon.  And  the  “ Karkaa,” 5 or  “ the  bottom 

1 Psa.  63 : 1.  2 Num.  34  : 4,  5 ; Josh.  15 : 4. 

3  Targum  of  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  at  Num.  34  : 4 (DDp,  qesam). 

4 Targum  of  Jerusalem  at  Num.  34  : 4 (□D1p , qaisam). 

5 Josh.  15  : 3 haqqarqa’a ; “the  bottom-land”). 

“ The  word  means  ‘ a low-lying  flat,’  and  perhaps  may  belong  to  some  district  in 
the  border-land  between  Adar  and  Azmon,  rather  than  to  any  town.”  ( Speaker’s 
Com.,  in  loco). 

Robinson’s  Gesenius  gives  the  meaning  of  this  word  as  a “ floor,”  or  “ the  bottom 
19 


290 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


land,”  which  is  referred  to  as  between  “ ’Adar  ” (or  “ Qadayrat  ”) 
and  “’Azmon”  (or  Qasaymeh),1  would  seem  to  be  found  in  the 
bed  of  this  extensive  water  basin,  which  Bartlett2  describes  as 
“ continuing  a mile  beyond  where  the  water  is  found,”  in  the  direc- 
tion of  where  we  found  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat ; forming  “ a kind  of 
oblong  basin  enclosed  on  all  sides  by  continuous  ranges  of  hills,  and 
terminating  at  the  east  abruptly  against  a still  higher  mountain 
range,  which  runs  north  and  south.”  He  adds,  that  “ at  the 
eastern  end  of  the  wady,  however,  its  northern  hill-boundary 
breaks  down,  and  the  valley  connects  here  (as  indicated  in  Mr. 
Palmer’s  map)  with  the  eastern  terminus  of  Wady  el  ’Ain.” 

This  connection  of  Wady  Qasaymeh,  at  its  eastern,  or  north- 
eastern end,  with  Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  I was  told  of  by  my 
Arabs.  It  conforms  most  accurately  with  the  description  of  the 
southern  boundary-line  of  Judah,3  which  from  Kadesh-barnea,  or 
Qadees,  passed  along  to  “ Hezron,”  or  the  Place  of  Enclosures, 
and  went  up  to  “ Adar,”  or  Qadayrat ; and  fetched  a compass  from 
Qadayrat,  through  this  break  in  the  mountain-wall,  to  the 
“ Karkaa,”  or  the  Bottom  Land  beyond ; and  passed  toward 
“ ’Azmon,”  or  Qasaymeh ; and  went  out  toward  “ the  river  of 
Egypt,”  or  Wady  el-’Areesh,  whence  its  goings  out  were  at  the 
Mediterranean  Sea. 

of  the  sea,”  and  would  find  its  rootingoor  (Up),  “ to  dig  for  water.”  Fiirst  (TFor- 
terbuch ) would  connect  it  with  rag’ a CPp^),  “ to  spread  out.”  See,  also,  Wilton’s 
The  Negeb,  pp.  162-164. 

All  these  conditions  are  met  in  the  earthen  floor  which  is  spread  out  beyond 
Qasaymeh  toward  Qadayrat,  as  a water  basin,  in  which  one  can  dig  for  water  at 
almost  any  point. 

1 To  a person  entirely  unacquainted  with  the  Oriental  tongues,  this  recognizing  of 
“Adar”  and  “Azmon”  in  “Qadayrat”  and  “Qasaymeh”  may  appear  forced  or 
strange.  But  it  suffices  to  say,  that  these  words  are  variously  written,  as  if  beginning 
with  a “ Q,”  a “ Iv,”  a “ G,”  or  an  aspirated  A (“  ’A”) ; all  these  letters  representing 
variations  of  a common  guttural  sound  of  the  original.  And  the  terminal  “ at,”  or 
“eh,”  is  an  inessential  addition,  according  to  the  customs  of  the  language. 

2 Egypt  to  Palestine,  p.  360.  3 Josh.  15 : 3,  4. 


ANOTHER  LANDMARK  RECOGNIZED. 


291 


It  is  a noteworthy  fact,  moreover,  that  Palmer1  was  pointed  by 
the  Arabs,  in  this  wady,  to  ruins  which  they  said  marked  u the 
limits  of  the  territory  of  the  ‘ old  Christians/  ” as  the  Bed'ween 
call  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  their  country.  The  very  name  of  this 
wady — in  its  root  derivation,  both  in  Hebrew2  and  in  Arabic3— 
indicates  “ division  ” and  “ apportionment  ” ; and  although  this 
does  not,  as  some  have  claimed,4  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of 
“ boundary,”  it  certainly  consists  with  the  idea  of  a place  of  boun- 
dary-division growing  out  of  the  apportionment  of  territory  on 
one  side  to  one  people  and  on  the  other  side  to  another  people. 
When  I asked  of  my  dragoman  the  meaning  of  “ Qasaymeh,”  his 
answer  was  : “ When  a man  give  out  all  his  property  to  his  sons, 
he  give  one  share  alike  to  all.  Qasaymeh  mean  that.”  This  wady 
is  obviously  a natural  division-line  in  any  apportionment  of  the 
lands  on  either  side  of  it. 

I have  quoted  freely  from  Bartlett’s  description  of  Wady 
Qasaymeh  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  I contented  myself 
with  verifying  that  description  on  the  spot,  rather  than  in  making 
extended  fresh  notes,  as  at  the  other  wells — which  had  not  been  so 
fully  described.  And,  again,  there  is  added  force  in  the  accuracy 
of  these  details,  as  conforming  to  the  Bible  text,  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  in  their  writing  Bartlett  supposed  he  was  describing 
Wady  Qadees,  and  not  Wady  Qasaymeh.  All  the  facts  given  me 
by  my  Arabs  were  obtained  without  any  leading  questions  on  my 
part.  Not  having  come  to  Qasaymeh  directly  from  Qadayrat,  I 
could  not  be  sure  of  the  compass  direction  of  the  one  from  the 
other.  At  the  time,  I thought  that  Qadayr&t  lay  farther  north 
than  Qasaymeh ; and  I reported  accordingly  in  the  first  mention  of 
my  journeyings  ;5  but  a subsequent  study  of  maps  and  itineraries, 

1 See  Des.  of  Exod.y  IL,  356/.  2 DDj3,  qasam;  “divided.” 

3  Qasama;  “ duly  apportioned.”  See  Freytag’s  Lex.  Arab.  Lat.,  s.  v. 

4  See  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Name  Lists,”  p.  9. 

5  In  Quarterly  Statement  of  Pal.  Explor.  Fund,  for  July,  1881. 


292 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


together  with  a recall  of  my  own  course,  led  to  the  conviction  that 
?Ayn  el-Qadayrat  lay  easterly,  or  perhaps  a little  south  of  east,  from 
?Ayn  Qasaymeh ; as  would  be  inferred  from  the  Bible  narrative. 
Owdy  was  positive  that  there  was  no  opening  from  either  Wady 
Qasaymeh  or  Wady  ?Ayn  el-Qadayrat  into  Wady  Qadees. 

While  we  were  at  Qasaymeh,  a party  of  Bed'ween  women  came 
to  the  wells,  leading  donkeys — on  the  backs  of  which  were  slung 
large  water  skins  to  be  filled  at  the  wells.  There  were  also  baby 
Arabs  and  baby  donkeys;  both  comical  enough  in  their  way.  The 
donkeys  were  permitted  to  go  directly  into  the  pools  and  trouble 
the  water  with  their  feet,  before  the  water  skins  were  filled. 
Whether  this  was  supposed  to  give  a medical  value  to  the  water 
did  not  appear ; but  it  certainly  increased  its  specific  gravity,  and 
commingled  with  it  whatever  helps  to  healing  the  soil  of  the 
region  might  supply.  The  women  followed  the  donkeys  into  the 
pools,  and  filled  the  water  skins  at  their  feet.  And  this  is  the 
Oriental  order  of  watering  beasts  and  men  at  watering  pools. 
These  Arab  women  were,  I believe,  of  the  Terabeen  tribe. 
Several  tribes  water  here,  as  if  ?Ayn  Qasaymeh  were  the  common 
apportionment  of  the  Arabs  on  every  side. 


23.  AN  ARAB’S  SHORT  CUT. 

Having  satisfied  our  curiosity  concerning  Qasaymeh,  we  re- 
mounted our  camels,  and  turned  our  faces  northward.  The  shrewd 
Owdy  professed  to  know  “a  short  cut”  across  the  country  on  our 
way  to  overtake  our  caravan,  and  naturally  we  trusted  to  his 
guidance.  It  seemed  to  us  that  we  veered  too  far  westward,  but 
he  was  positive  that  we  should  save  distance  by  his  route,  so  we 
followed  it.  Still  bearing  to  the  west  of  north,  we  came  to  an  open 
plain  with  its  waving  grain  fields.  This,  Owdy  called  Wady 
Rahhabeh,  or  Bayhobeh.  I find  no  such  wady  on  the  maps;  but 
I give  the  name  as  it  was  given  to  me,  for  whatever  it  may  prove 


OWDY'S  USE  OF  SALT 


293 


to  be  worth.  It  is  a long  way  below  the  well-known  Wady  Ru- 
haybeh,  commonly  supposed  to  be  the  Rehoboth  of  Isaac,1  which 
we  passed  the  next  afternoon. 

In  one  of  the  side  hills  above  this  wady,  eastward,  we  saw  a 
large  cave,  of  the  sort  often  described  in  this  region,2  as  possibly 
an  old  quarry,  or  again  as  an  ancient  dwelling.  And  now  we 
learned  the  secret  of  Owdy’s  “ short  cut.”  He  had  a field  of  bar- 
ley planted  in  this  wady,  and  wanting  to  take  a look  at  it,  he  had 
brought  us  out  of  our  way  to  enable  him  to  do  so.  The  opportu- 
nity to  do  this  he  deemed  too  good  to  be  lost;  and  even  if  he 
might  have  resisted  the  temptation,  he  did  not.  The  barley  looked 
well;  and  Owdy  was  satisfied,  whoever  else  was  disposed  to  com- 
plain.3 

Turning  now  to  the  east  of  north,  we  hurried  on.  Again  we 
crossed  Wady  Sabh;  this  time  at  its  western  end.  There  we  saw 
a number  of  flourishing  fig  trees.  Soon  after  noon  we  were  near 
our  last  night’s  camping  ground  in  Wady  Seram;  and  we  halted 
for  a lunch.  All  the  afternoon,  as  we  pushed  northward,  we  were 
surrounded  by  signs  of  present  fertility  of  soil,  and  of  former 
extensive  cultivation ; as  many  travelers  have  before  reported.4 


24.  OWDY’S  USE  OF  SALT. 

Although  I had  surprised  Owdy  into  truth-telling  in  our  confer- 
ence over  the  wells,  two  evenings  before,  he  was  by  no  means  dis- 


1 Gen.  26 : 19-22. 

2Bonar’s  Des,  of  Sinai,  p.  300;  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  357;  Bartlett’s  Egypt 
to  Pal.,  p.  357. 

3 Sir  Frederick  Henniker  ( Notes  during  a Visit  to  Egypt,  etc.,  p.  244)  tells  of  a 
similar  deceit  practiced  on  him  by  his  guide,  who  desired  to  visit  a friend  on  the  road 
from  Mount  Sinai. 

4 See,  Bobinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  191  /. ; Bonar’s  Des.  of  Sinai,  pp.  300-303 ; Stewart’s 
Tent  and  Khan,  p.  197 ; Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  359-361 ; Bartlett’s  Egypt  to 
Pal.,  pp.  364-366. 


294 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


posed  to  become  “ a slave  of  the  truth.”  “ Lying  is  the  salt  of  a 
man,” 1 as  an  Arab  views  it ; and  Owdy  did  not  propose  to  live 
without  salt  more  than  one  day  at  a time.  His  “ short  cut  ” to 
reach  his  own  barley  field  was  not  his  only  falsehood  of  this  day. 

When  we  came  to  Wady  Hanayn,  known  to  the  Arabs  as  “ a 
valley  of  gardens,”  Owdy  insisted  that  its  name  was  “ Wady 
Hafeer.”  This  was  in  accordance  with  the  Arab  superstition  that 
“ should  sl  seil  [a  sudden  rain-flood]  once  come  down  Wadi  Ha- 
nein,  there  would  be  an  end  to  all  prosperity  in  the  land.”  As  a 
guard  against  this  danger,  the  “ Christians,”  who  are  supposed  to 
have  a “ mysterious  influence  over  the  rainfall,”  are  not  permitted 
to  hear  the  name  “ Hanein,”  or  “ Hanayn,”  with  its  evil  omen, 
lest  they  should  be  prompted  to  hasten  the  dreaded  doom.2 

Again,  as  we  neared  El-’Aujeh,  in  the  vicinity  of  which  we  ex- 
pected to  come  up  with  our  caravan,  and  camp  for  the  night,  I 
asked  casually  how  near  us  was  “ Wady  Beerayn.”  Owdy  had 
“ never  heard  of  that  place.”  His  expression  of  ignorance  was 
seemingly  so  natural  and  artless  that  at  first  I thought  I was 
misunderstood  by  him,  and  I changed  the  pronunciation  of  the 
name  several  times  in  repeating  the  question,  but  all  to  no  purpose. 
Then  my  dragoman  sounded  Owdy  and  the  others  of  the  party 
one  by  one,  only  to  find  an  appalling  stupidity  resting  down  on 
them  all.  I knew  they  were  shamming,  although  my  dragoman 
thought  it  could  not  be  so ; but  as  I had  no  wish  to  follow  up 
the  matter,  I let  it  drop. 

That  evening,  when  they  were  in  camp,  the  Arabs  gleefully  in- 

1 An  “Arab  proverb,  el-kizb  milh  el-insdn.”  (Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  325 ; 
also  Conder’s  Tent  Work  in  Pal.,  II.,  210.) 

“ Truth  in  ordinary  matters,  is  not  regarded  as  a virtue  by  the  Bedouins,  nor  is 
lying  held  shameful.  Every  man,  they  say,  has  a right  to  conceal  his  own  thought.” 
( Bedouins  of  Euphrates , p.  390.)  And  there  are  traces  of  this  Oriental  philosophy 
in  the  reasoning  of  many  Occidentals. 

2 See  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod. , II.,  305/. 


A CAMP  AT  EL- A TJJEH. 


295 


formed  the  dragoman  that  they  knew  Wady  Beerayn  well  enough; 
but  they  thought  I might  want  to  visit  it,  and  they  had  had  well- 
hunting enough  for  one  trip.  Owdy  had  quietly  passed  the  word 
to  them  all  to  feign  ignorance  under  my  questioning,  and  they  had 
acted  their  part  to  perfection. 


25.  A CAMP  AT  EL-AUJEH. 

El-’Aujeh  is  one  of  three  places  prominent  for  their  extensive 
ruins  in  the  western  Negeb ; the  other  two  being  El-’Abdeh  and 
Sebayta.  Palmer  quotes  a saying  of  the  Arabs,  “ There  is  nothing 
grander  than  El-’Aujeh  and  El-’Abdeh,  except  Sebaita,  which  is 
grander  than  either.” 1 As  has  been  already  mentioned,2  Robinson, 
misled  by  his  Arabs  and  a Hebron  camel-owner,  confounded  El- 
’Aujeh  with  El-’Abdeh,3  and  his  error  has  been  followed  and 
popularized  by  Porter  in  Murray’s  Handbook.4  After  Seetzen’s 
first  mention  of  El-’Abdeh,  as  “Abde,”5  Bonar6  and  Stewart7 
pointed  out  the  two  places,  El-’Abdeh  and  El-’Aujeh,  in  their 
separateness;  and  finally  Palmer8  visited  both  places,  as  also 
Sebayta,  and  gave  a full  description  of  the  three.  Stewart  has 
suggested  the  identity  of  El-’Aujeh  with  the  capital  of  ancient 
Gerar,9  and  it  is  certainly  a more  reasonable  site  for  that  city  than 
the  ruins  near  Gaza,  as  conforming  to  the  hints  of  its  location  in 
the  Bible  text.  El-’Aujeh  seems  to  be  a favorite  haunt  of  the 
’Azazimeh,  and  they  are  jealous  of  its  approach  by  Christians  ;10 
yet,  as  it  is  not  within  their  extensive  domain,  they  cannot  confis- 
cate the  property  of  travelers  whom  the  Teeyahah  guide  past  it. 


1 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  375.  2 See  page  87  /.,  supra,  note. 

3  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  191,  600/. 

4  See  Murray’s  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Pal.,  edition  of  1875,  p.  100. 

5  Reise,  III.,  43.  6 Des.  of  Sinai,  p.  302  ff.  v Tent  and  Khan,  p.  198  ff. 

8 Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  359-413.  9 Tent  and  Khan,  pp.  200,  209. 

10  Des.  of  Exod.,  II.,  371. 


296 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


The  principal  ruins  of  El-’Aujeh  are  on  the  summits  of  a 
double  hill,  which  looms  up  above  the  plain  of  Wady  Hauayn  as 
one  approaches  it  from  the  south.  Eastward  and  northerly  of  this 
hill  gleamed  our  snowy  tents,  as  we  came  over  the  plain  at  the 
close  of  the  day.  But  between  us  and  our  camp  we  saw,  at  our 
right,  the  black  tents  of  Bed'ween,  whom  our  Arabs  at  once  pro- 
nounced “ ’Azazimeh,”  and  with  this  recognition  the  discoverers, 
dragoman  included,  were  filled  with  dismay.  All  seemed  more 
fearful  than  usual,  as  if  from  the  thought  that  the  ’Azazimeh 
might  be  aware  of  our  clandestine  visit  of  the  day  before,  to  their 
jealously-guarded  wells. 


26.  ARAB  MODE  OF  BALANCING  AN  ACCOUNT. 

The  ’Azazimeh  camp  was  a large  one.  As  we  neared  it,  in 
passing,  we  saw  that  we  were  watched  curiously  by  sharp-eyed 
women  and  children  at  every  tent.  Great  flocks  of  sheep  and 
goats  were  feeding  in  the  vicinity.  The  men  whom  we  saw,  gave 
us  surly  looks. 

Hardly  were  we  in  our  tents,  on  reaching  our  camp,  before  word 
came  that  the  ’Azazimeh  had  seized  one  of  the  dromedaries  we  had 
been  riding.  At  this  our  dragoman  applied  to  the  ’Azazimeh 
shaykh  for  an  explanation.  The  shaykh’s  reply  was,  that  some 
two  years  before  this  the  Teeyahah  had  taken  a dromedary  from 
his  people,  and  he  had  been  waiting  all  this  time  for  an  opportu- 
nity of  reprisal.  At  last  the  opportunity  and  the  dromedary  were 
at  hand.  He  had  simply  balanced  a long  standing  account. 
Could  anything  be  fairer  than  this  ? 

Instead  of  denouncing  the  whole  transaction  as  dishonest  and 
outrageous,  Muhammad  Ahmad,  with  true  Oriental  courtesy  and 
shrewdness,  admitted  that  the  principle  affirmed  was  eminently  a 
correct  one.  On  the  shaykh’s  showing  of  the  case,  the  Teeyahah 
clearly  owed  a dromedary  to  the  ’Azazimeh ; and  the  ’Azazimeh 


ARAB  MODE  OF  BALANCING  AN  ACCOUNT.  297 


were  quite  right  in  desiring  to  collect  their  dues.  But  there  was 
another  point  in  this  case,  which  the  shaykh  would  do  well  not  to 
overlook.  The  Teeyahah  were  now  under  contract  with  “ Chris- 
tian ” travelers  to  convey  them  safely  and  speedily  to  Hebron. 
The  dromedaries  of  the  caravan  belonged  for  the  time  being  to  the 
Christians.  They  were  now  on  the  highway,  over  which  the 
Teeyahah  were  by  desert  law  entitled  to  pass.  There  was  here  no 
trespass  on  the  ’Azazimeh’s  exclusive  domain.  If  a dromedary 
were  taken  from  this  caravan,  the  Christians  would  rightly  be 
angered ; and  their  curse  might  be  brought  on  the  land.  They 
might  bring  a sayl  down  Wady  Hanayn ; or  their  people  from  afar 
might  come  to  retake  the  desert.  If  the  shaykh  were  wise,  he 
would  postpone  his  attempt  at  reprisal  until  the  Teeyahah  came 
that  way  without  any  Christian  travelers  in  convoy. 

This  was  the  dragoman’s  putting  of  the  case ; and  he  presented 
it  as  if  out  of  sheer  love  for  the  ’Azazimeh,  rather  than  because  of 
his  incidental  connection  with  the  Teeyahah.  The  shaykh,  if  not 
wise,  was  superstitious ; as  every  Arab  is.  The  pictured  dangers 
he  was  incurring,  were  too  formidable  for  him.  He  would  have 
braved  the  Teeyahah  without  hesitation;  but  he  was  not  ready  to 
defy  the  mysterious  “ Christians  ” with  their  power  over  the  invis- 
ible world.  He  expressed  regret  that  he  had  failed  to  comprehend 
the  true  state  of  this  case,  from  the  beginning ; and  he  hastened  to 
restore  the  dromedary  to  its  place  in  the  caravan  camp.1 

1 It  is  possible  that  this  narrow  escape  of  a dromedary  has  increased  the  Teeyahah 
reluctance  to  cross  the  ’Azazimeh  territory  northward.  At  all  events,  Professor  Post, 
of  Bayroot,  a long  time  resident  of  the  East,  while  crossing  the  desert  with  his  friend, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Field,  of  New  York,  in  the  spring  of  1882,  found  himself  unable  to 
induce  the  Teeyahah  to  take  that  course.  He  says  (“  Sunday  School  World”  for 
January,  1883),  “ [They]  raised  so  many  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  route  to  Hebron, 
that  we  were  obliged  to  modify  our  itinerary  and  go  by  way  of  Gaza.”  An  English 
party,  about  the  same  time  (as  reported  in  “Macmillan’s  Magazine”  for  January, 
1883),  intent  on  going  “byNakhl,  Beersheba  and  Hebron,”  had  a similar  experi- 
ence. The  narrator  says : “We  were  forced  to  make  a detour  by  Gaza  [from  Nakhl], 


298 


KA  DESII-BARNEA . 


27.  AN  ’AZAZIMEH  PROTEST. 

Later  in  the  evening,  the  ’Azazimeh  shaykh  came  again  to  our 
camp,  as  if  under  exercise  of  mind  about  the  suggestions  of  our 
dragoman  concerning  the  possible  performances  of  the  Christian 
travelers.  He  said  that  he  very  well  knew  that  all  this  country — 
the  desert  land — once  belonged  to  the  Christians’  grandfathers,  and 
that  the  ruins  about  us — El-’Aujeh  included — were  Christian 
ruins ; but  now  the  country  belonged  to  the  ’Azazimeh,  and  he 
hoped  the  Christians  would  respect  ’Azazimeh  rights. 

He  was  much  relieved  when  assured  that  the  Christians  of  this 
party  would  make  no  claim  to  the  territory,  and  that  their  declar- 
ation to  him  was:  “ We  will  go  by  the  king’s  highway;  we  will 
not  turn  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left,  until  we  have  passed  thy 
borders.  And  if  we  and  our  cattle  drink  of  thy  water,  then  we 
will  pay  for  it : We  will  only,  without  doing  anything  else,  go 
through  on  our  feet.” 1 

This  ’Azazimeh  shaykh’s  anxiety  was  an  illustration  of  the  com- 
mon dread,  among  the  wilder  Arab  tribes,  of  a Christian  invasion 
of  the  desert ; a dread  which  in  itself  has  been  one  of  the  chief 
hindrances  to  unrestricted  visits  to  the  region  of  ’Ayn  Qadees. 
Owdy  and  our  young  shaykhs  told  our  dragoman,  on  this  evening 
at  El-’Aujeh,  that  the  prevailing  unwillingness  of  their  people  to 
have  travelers  visit  ’Ayn  Qadees  and  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  grew  out 
of  the  fear  that  if  Christians  knew  there  were  such  wells  as  those 
in  the  desert,  they  would  come  and  retake  the  country.  Because 
desert  wells  are  such  a priceless  treasure  to  the  Bed 'ween,  it  is  hard 
for  the  Bed'ween  to  realize  that  Christians  can  see  them  in  any  less 

as  we  learnt  on  the  way  that  fighting  was  going  on  between  certain  tribes  round 
Beersheba,  and  nothing  would  induce  our  Arabs  to  go  on  unless  we  would  change 
our  plans.” 


1 Num.  20 : 17,  19. 


AN  ’ AZAZ1MEH  PROTEST. 


299 


attractive  light.  Indeed  our  Arabs  grieved  the  heart  of  Muham- 
mad Ahmad  by  reproaching  him  for  having  used  his  influence  as  a 
Muhammadan  preacher  to  induce  them  to  disclose  the  sacred  trea- 
sures of  the  desert  to  unbelievers.1 

And  these  incidents  at  El-’Aujeh  closed  up  our  two  days’ 
romantic  and  successful  hunt  for  the  wells  of  Qadees,  Qadayrat, 
and  Qasaymeh. 

1 2 Kings  20 : 12-17 ; Isa.  39 : 1-6. 

It  is  more  than  possible  that  the  young  shaykhs,  Hamdh  and  Ibraheem,  were 
taken  seriously  to  task  by  their  indignant  fathers,  when  it  became  known  that  they 
had  actually  piloted  Christian  travelers  to  the  long-concealed  well  at  Qadees.  If  so, 
their  mistake  will  be  less  likely  to  occur  again. 


YI. 


K ADE  S H-BAENEA. 


THE  SITES  COMPARED. 


K AD  E S H-BARNEA. 


1.  SUGGESTED  IDENTIFICATIONS. 

And  now  that  all  the  facts  in  the  case  are  fairly  before  us,  it  is 
desirable  to  look  back  over  their  record,  in  order  to  a recognition 
of  their  variety  and  their  relative  importance.  The  different  sites 
suggested  in  identification  of  Kadesh-barnea  ought  to  be  brought 
into  direct  comparison,  if  we  would  arrive  at  a final  and  definite 
conclusion  concerning  their  merits  respectively. 

It  has  been  seen  that  at  least  eighteen  distinct  sites  have  been 
proposed  for  the  identification  of  the  sanctuary-stronghold  on  the 
southern  border  of  the  Holy  Land.  These  are : 1 . Chawatha,  or 
Hawwadeh,  between  Gaza  and  Beersheba;1  2.  Castle  Nakhl,  or 
its  vicinity;2  3.  A locality  at  a day’s  distance  northward  from 
Mount  Sinai;5  4.  A point  near  Ezion-gaber;4  5.  The ’Arabah;5  6. 
“ Embasch,”  at  the  mouth  of  Wady  Jerafeh ; 6 7.  Jebel  Madurah, 
and  its  vicinity;7  8.  ’Ayn  Hash;8  9.  Wady  Gayan,  or  Abyad;c 
10. ’Ayn  el-Waybeh;10  11.  ’Ayn  Qadees;11  12.  El-Khaloos ; 12 
13.  Wady  Ghuwayr ; 13  14.  ’Ayn  esh-Shehabeh ; 14  15.  Wady 


1 See 

page 

192  f.  supra. 

2 See 

page 

203/  supra. 

3 (( 

(( 

204,  “ 

4 “ 

u 

227,  “ 

5 “ 

u 

205#.,  “ 

6 “ 

it 

206,  u 

7 « 

a 

207,  “ 

8 « 

it 

206/.,  “ 

9 

“ 

222,  “ 

10  “ 

it 

209#., « 

11  « 

“ 211-215,  “ 

12  “ 

• “ 

227,  “ 

13  « 

U 

227,  “ 

14  “ 

it 

225,  “ 

303 


304 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Feqreh;1  16.  Near  the  southeast  portion  of  the  Jebel  Muqrah 
tract ; 2 17.  Petra ; 3 18.  Along  the  Upper  ’Arabah,  and  to  the  base 
of  Naqb  es-Sufah.4 

At  first  sight,  this  seems  a strange  and  hopeless  tangle ; yet  on 
examination  it  appears  that  the  eighteen  sites  are  ranged  on  the 
two  sides  of  a well-defined  line ; and  that  they  are  to  be  considered, 
in  their  comparison,  with  reference  to  that  one  line.  Ten  of  these 
sites  are  in  the  ’Arabah,  or  immediately  out  of  it  and  near  its 
level ; while  eight  of  them  are  on  the  upper  desert,  or  northward 
of  it  and  near  its  level.  And  this  division  at  once  simplifies  the 
comparison  of  the  many  sites  suggested. 


2.  THE  TWO  REPRESENTATIVE  SITES. 

Kadesh-barnea  is  to  be  recognized,  either  in  or  near  the  ’Arabah 
(the  great  natural  depression  between  the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red 
Sea  and  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea) ; or  on  or  near  the 
plateau  of  the  Desert  et-Teeh,  more  than  a thousand  feet  above  the 
level  of  the  ’Arabah.  The  approach  of  the  Israelites  to  Canaan 
must  have  been  by  the  one  direction  or  the  other ; by  the  lower 
’Arabah,  or  by  the  upper  desert ; and  Kadesh-barnea  must  have 
been  at  the  northern  extremity  of  the  route  thus  taken. 

*Ayn  el-Waybeh  is  in  the  ?Arabah,  near  its  upper  end.  ?Ayn 
Qadees  is  on  the  level  of  the  upper  desert,  at  a point  northward  of 
the  desert  proper,  but  not  within  the  commonly  supposed  boun- 
daries of  Canaan.  These  two  sites  are,  therefore,  representative 
sites ; and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  they  have  been  so  ac- 
cepted and  discussed.  The  main  arguments  for,  and  the  main 
objections  to,  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  sites,  tell  for  or  against 
the  seven,  or  the  nine,  other  sites  proposed  in  the  same  general 


1 See  page  228,  supra. 

“ 228,  “ 


2 See  page  228,  supra. 


227  “ 


3 


4 “ 


CLAIMS  FOR  ’AYN  EL-WAYBEH. 


305 


region.  If  the  general  region  of  the  one  is  established  as  correct, 
the  precise  location  of  that  one  calls  for  supplemental  examination ; 
but  if  its  general  region  is  ruled  out  of  the  case,  its  precise  location 
in  that  region  is  of  no  further  importance. 

Hence  the  real  issue  in  this  case  can  fairly  be  settled  by  a com- 
parison of  the  two  representative  sites  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  and 
’Ayn  Qadees.  What,  therefore,  are  the  claims  of,  and  what  the 
objections  to,  these  sites  respectively  ? 

3.  CLAIMS  FOR  ’AYN  EL-WAYBEH. 

In  support  of  the  claims  of  *Ayn  el-Waybeh  as  the  site  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  it  is  said,  that  as  the  Israelites  went  from  Mount 
Sinai  to  Kadesh-barnea  “by  the  way  of  Mount  Seir,”1  they  must 
have  gone  by  the  ’Arabah,  which  skirts  the  western  border  of 
Mount  Seir;  and  that  ?Ayn  el-Waybeh  is  the  most  prominent 
fountain  in  the  highway  of  the  ’Arabah  toward  Canaan. 

Moreover,  it  is  said,  that  as  Kadesh-barnea  was  at  the  uttermost 
border  of  Edom,2  and  the  ’Arabah  was  the  western  border  of 
Mount  Seir  (which  was  also  Edom),  Kadesh-barnea  could  not  have 
been  westward  of  the  ’Arabah ; and,  it  being  in  the  ’Arabah,  there 
is  no  more  probable  site  for  it  than  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh. 

The  surroundings  of  ?Ayn  el-Waybeh  are  said  to  correspond 
with  the  surroundings  of  Kadesh-barnea;  including  the  mountain 
at  the  northwest  of  it,  up  which,  Canaanward,  goes  the  Pass  es- 
Sufah  (suggested  as  a synonym  of  Zephath);3  including,  also, 
Mount  Hor,  and  other  tentative  identifications.  The  Wilderness 
of  Zin  is  claimed  to  be  identical  with  the  ’Arabah ; and  the  high- 
way of  the  ’Arabah  is  said  to  be  the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea,  down 
which  the  Israelites  passed  when  they  turned  from  Kadesh-barnea.4 


20 


2 Num.  20 : 16. 


i Deut.  1 : 2. 

3 Judges  1 : 17.  Comp.  Num.  21 : 3. 

4 Deut.  2 : 1. 


306 


KA  DESH-BA  RNEA. 


And  as  Kedor-la’omer  halted  at  Kadesh  on  his  way  into  Canaan, 
it  is  claimed  that  his  more  natural  course,  after  turning  the  southern 
end  of  the  Mount  Seir  range,  would  be  up  the  ’Arabah,  toward  the 
site  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh. 

This  seems  to  be  the  extent  of  the  specific  claims  in  support  of 
this  identification  of  Kadesh-barnea.  Any  reshaping  of  the  argu- 
ment is  within  the  limits  of  these  claims. 


4.  OBJECTIONS  TO  ’AYN  EL-WAYBEH. 

The  prime  objection  to  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  is,  that  it  is  in  the 
’Arabah,  where  no  Bible  mention  of  Kadesh-barnea,  earlier  or 
later,  will  justify  the  location  of  that  place. 

Kedor-la’omer  swept  on  past  Mount  Seir  to  an  oasis  in  the  Wil- 
derness of  Paran,  before  he  turned  northward.1  The  difficult 
passes  of  the  southern  mountain-wall  of  Canaan  at  the  northern 
end  of  the  ’ Arabah,  were  quite  unsuited  to  such  an  advance  as  his ; 
especially  if,  as  seems  most  probable,  he  came  with  horses  and 
chariots.  Moreover,  the  order  of  his  movements  in  Canaan  shows 
that  Kedor-la’omer  struck  the  field  of  the  Amalekites  before  he 
reached  Hazezon-tamar,  or  En-gedi;2  in  other  words,  that  he 
approached  the  Dead  Sea  immediately  from  the  westward,  and  not 
directly  from  the  southward.  This  is  inconsistent  with  his  ap- 
proach to  Canaan  by  way  of  the  ’Arabah;  and  it  was  on  this 
advance  that  he  halted  at  Kadesh. 

When  the  Israelites  moved  over  from  Mount  Sinai  to  Kadesh- 
barnea,  they  went  across  the  “ great  and  terrible  wilderness;” 3 
which  would  not  have  been  the  case  had  they  skirted  the  eastern 
peninsula  into  and  along  the  ’Arabah.  That  “ wilderness  ” must 
have  been  the  elevated  desert -plateau  of  Et-Teeh.  In  journeying 
by  the  “Way  of  Mount  Seir,”  they  simply  took  the  easternmost 


i Gen.  14 : 5,  6. 


2 Gen.  14:  7. 


3 Deut.  1 : 19. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ’ AYN  EL-WAYBEH. 


307 


road  out  of  the  Mount  Sinai  group ; a road  bearing  the  name  and 
trending  in  the  direction  of  Mount  Seir,  but  which  they  followed 
no  farther  than  brought  them  to  the  border  of  the  wilderness 
beyond  which  lay  the  land  of  their  seeking.  They  took  the  Mount 
Seir  Road,  but  they  did  not  pursue  that  road  to  Mount  Seir. 

The  ’Arabah  was  not  one  of  the  ordinary  routes  from  Mount 
Sinai  to  Canaan.  It  was  a most  unnatural  course  between  those 
two  regions.  Far  less  was  it  suited  to  be  the  line  of  approach  to 
Canaan  for  a hostile  army.  At  the  best,  it  was  but  a rugged  high- 
way, shut  in  between  frowning  mountains,  proffering  no  oppor- 
tunity to  the  invaders  to  turn  aside  into  any  shielded  covert  near 
the  borders  of  the  objective  territory,  while  reconnoitring  and 
making  other  preparations  for  an  onward  movement.  While 
themselves  constantly  exposed  to  sudden  attack  from  flank  and 
rear,  they  would  have  before  them  the  strongest  and  most  easily 
defended  natural  bulwarks  of  the  enemy,  as  their  only  avenue  to 
the  land  they  would  enter  forcibly. 

The  idea  of  such  a host  as  Israel’s  settling  down  at  a prominent 
watering-place  in  a common  thoroughfare,  to  abide  there  “ many 
days,”  and  that  in  such  a torrent-swept  and  yet  permanently  bar- 
ren region  as  the  ’Arabah,  is  utterly  at  variance  with  any  fair  con- 
ception of  the  prudence  and  foresight  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  or  of 
the  unfailing  wisdom  of  their  Heavenly  Guide. 

In  the  site  and  surroundings  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  there  is  no 
fair  correspondence  with  the  Bible  descriptions  of  Kadesh-barnea. 
No  distinct  Rock  is  there,  such  as  that  before  which  the  congrega- 
tion of  Israel  was  gathered  by  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  out  from 
which  the  accustomed  waters  were  made  to  flow  anew.1  No  site 
for  “ a city  ” is  there ; nor  yet  a site  for  an  encircled-stronghold, 
such  as  that  from  which  the  spies  were  sent  into  Canaan,2  and  the 
messengers  to  the  kings  of  Edom  and  Moab.3  There  is  no  moun- 

1 Num.  20 : 7-11.  2Num.  13:  21-26;  Deutl:  19-24. 

3Num.  20:  14-16;  Judges  11 : 17. 


308 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


tain  near  it  on  the  way  into  Canaan.1  The  nearest  mountains  are 
westward,  and  they  are  not  in  the  direction  of  Canaan.2  The 
southern  mountain-wall  of  Canaan,  up  which  ascends  the  Pass 
es-Sufah  (suggested  as  the  mountain  clambered  by  the  rebellious 
Israelites),3  is  nearly  or  quite  a day’s  journey  northward,  and  a deep 
wady  intervenes  between  that  and  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh.  There  is  no 
trace  of  the  ancient  name  of  Kadesh,  or  of  its  meaning,  in  ’Ayn 
el-Waybeh  or  its  vicinity.  Nor  is  there  a single  site  identified  in 
that  region,  of  any  place  which  was  near  Kadesh-barnea.  The 
site  of  Zephath,4  for  which  Es-Sufah  was  suggested,  has  been 
identified,  with  a correspondent  name,  at  some  distance  to  the 
westward ; and  that  is  the  only  site  for  which  any  claim  was  made, 
except  that  of  a possible  identification  in  case  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  were 
accepted  for  Kadesh-barnea. 

As  a boundary-line  landmark,  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  does  not  in  any 
degree  conform  to  the  requirements  of  the  Bible  mentions  of 
Kadesh-barnea.  The  latter  place  is  named  as  on  the  southern 
border  of  Judah,  at  several  removes  from  the  Dead  Sea.5  By  all 
analogy,  this  would  indicate  its  location  as  well  to  the  westward  of 
that  sea.  Again  it  is  named  as  the  central  one  of  three  main  land- 
marks between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean ; 6 which  would 
seem  to  fix  it  midway,  or  approximately  so,  between  those  two 
seas.  Yet  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  is  well  to  the  southward  of  the  Dead 
Sea ; and  the  only  way  of  adapting  it  to  a place  in  the  boundary 
line  would  be  by  running  a southern  line,  for  some  distance,  from 
northerly  to  southerly,  instead  of  from  easterly  to  westerly,  and 
then  making  an  abrupt  turn,  almost  at  a right  angle,  and  passing 
westward  over  mountain  ranges  instead  of  between  them,  in  a 

1  Deut.  1 : 19-24. 

2  See  the  photograph  of  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  accompanying  this.  The  hills  there 
shown  in  the  distance  are  westward,  not  Canaanward. 

3  Num.  14:  39-45.  4 Comp.  Num.  21 : 3,  and  Judges  1 : 17. 

e Ezek.  47  : 19  ; 48  : 28. 


3 Josh.  15 : 1-3. 


TRADITIONAL  SITE  FOR  MIRIAM’S  GRAVE.  ROBINSON’S  SITE  FOR  KADESH-BARNEA. 


| Hi  l-'WHHl 

Of 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ’ AYN  QADEES. 


309 


manner  quite  unlike  the  other  boundary  lines  of  the  Holy  Land, 
or  the  boundary  lines  of  any  other  land.  Even  then,  the  Bible 
mention  of  Kadesh-barnea  (as  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh)  as  a central  point 
of  the  southern  boundary,  would  be  either  most  inexplicable  or 
absurd. 

Finally,  the  ’Arabah  was  not  the  “ Wilderness  of  Zin;”1  for 
the  two  places  are  spoken  of  separately  by  their  own  names,  in  the 
Mosaic  record.  The  “ Way  of  the  Red  Sea”2  is  also  named  as 
distinct  from  the  “ Way  of  the  ’ Arabah,” 3 among  the  roads  taken 
by  the  Israelites  in  their  journeyings.  Nor  have  we  any  sound 
reason  for  supposing  that  Edom  was  ever  limited  westerly  by  the 
’Arabah  ; while  the  proof  is  well-nigh  absolute,  that  in  the  days  of 
Moses  and  earlier  it  stretched  over  into  the  Jebel  Muqrah  tract, 
along  the  southern  border  of  Canaan ; and  as  a result  the  upper 
’Arabah,  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh  included,  was  within  the  territory  of 
Edom ; hence  Kadesh-barnea  could  not  have  been  located  in  the 
’Arabah. 

In  fact,  the  claims  for  ?Ayn  el-Waybeh,  as  the  site*  of  Kadesh- 
barnea,  all  prove  baseless  on  examination  ; while  the  objections  to 
that  identification  increase  at  every  step  of  investigation ; and  they 
are  insurmountable. 


5.  OBJECTIONS  TO  ’AYN  QADEES. 

The  more  prominent  objections  which  have  long  been  urged 
against  ?Ayn  Qadees  as  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  are  already 
shown  to  have  had  no  solid  basis  in  fact,  but  to  have  grown  out  of 
a misunderstanding,  and  hence  a misrepresenting,  of  the  report  of 
its  earliest  modern-discoverer.  This  is  true  of  the  claim  that 
Qadees  was  a misnomer  for  Qadayrat,  and  that  Qadayrat  had  no 

1 Comp.  Num.  20 : 1 ; Deut.  1 : 1. 

2 Num.  14  : 25  ; 21 : 4;  Deut.  2 : 1. 


3 Deut.  2 : 8. 


310 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


mountain  at  the  northward  of  it,  on  the  road  toward  Hebron. 
These  objections  cannot  longer  be  urged  with  any  show  of  fairness. 

To  those  persons  who  believe  that  the  Israelites  approached 
Canaan  by  the  way  of  the  ’Arabah ; that  Mount  Seir  was  skirted 
in  that  approach;  and  that  the  ’Arabah  Avas  Edom’s  Avestern 
border, — the  fact  that  ’Ayn  Qadees  is  on  the  higher  level  of  the 
western  desert  is  in  itself  an  insuperable  objection  to  it  as  the  site 
of  Kadesh-barnea. 

Again  it  has  been  urged,  that  the  Israelites  would  not  have 
approached  Canaan  at  the  centre  of  its  southern  border,  because  of 
the  very  openness  of  that  region,  and  their  consequent  liability  to 
be  met  in  force  as  they  approached.  Robinson  even  brings  up,  in 
this  connection,  the  declaration  in  Exodus  13  : 17,  that  in  bringing 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  “ God  led  them  not  through  the  Way 
of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,  although  that  was  near ; for  God 
said,  Lest  peradventure  the  people  repent  when  they  see  Avar,  and 
they  return  to  Egypt : but  God  led  the  people  about,  through  the 
Way  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea.”  And  Robinson  says, 
that  “ the  object  of  this  circuitous  route  Avas  to  avoid  the  Philis- 
tines ; ” therefore  for  them  to  have  approached  Canaan  by  Avay  of 
’Ayn  Qadayrat  and  Beersheba,  “ would  have  brought  the  Israelites 
directly  along  side  of  the  Philistines,  and  thus  have  frustrated  the 
very  purpose  for  which  God  led  them  by  so  great  a circuit.”  1 

In  this  suggestion,  Robinson  leaves  out  of  mind  the  organization 
and  training  of  the  Israelites  at  Sinai,  after  the  period  of  that  dec- 
laration ; and  their  neAV  life  as  they  moved  north' ward,  preceded 
by  the  sacred  tabernacle,  after  their  experiences  of  successful  com- 
bat Avith  the  Amalekites.2  And  he  seems  to  forget  the  assurances 
newly  given  to  the  Israelites,  that  they  were  now  able  to  enter  into 
the  Promised  Land’s  possession.3  Moreover,  the  mid-desert  road 


1 Bib.  Sac.,  for  May,  1849,  p.  379. 

3 Deut.  1 : 19-21,  27-31. 


2 Exod.  17  : 8-13. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’AYN  QADEES. 


311 


to  Beersheba  and  Hebron,  was  by  no  means  the  same  as  the  Phil- 
istia  Road  out  of  Egypt  toward  Gaza. 

Various  other  objections  to  ’Ayn  Qadees  as  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  have  been  based  on  the  erroneous  identifications  of  other 
Bible  places ; or  on  misconceptions  of  the  requirements  of  the 
Bible  text  concerning  other  stations  in  the  record  of  the  wander- 
ings ; such  for  example  as  the  supposed  proximity  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  to  Mount  Hor  or  to  Ezion-gaber.  Again,  the  uncorrected 
errors  concerning  Kadesh-barnea,  and  its  vague  descriptions  by 
ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  who  had  no  personal  knowl- 
edge of  the  places  they  mentioned,  have  continued  to  be  used  as 
objections  against  ’Ayn  Qadees — as  obviously  not  answering  to  the 
requirements  of  those  errors  and  surmises.  In  fact,  however,  the 
doubts  thrown,  until  very  recently,  on  the  precise  location  of  ’Ayn 
Qadees,  have  prevented  the  proposing  of  intelligent  objections 
to  ’Ayn  Qadees  as  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea.  But  all  the  objec- 
tions which  seem  entitled  to  any  serious  weight,  are  now  before 
the  reader. 


6.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’AYN  QADEES. 

In  support  of  the  claim  that  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  is  iden- 
tified in  ’Ayn  Qadees,  it  is  seen,  as  follows : — 

1.  The  region  of  ’Ayn  Qadees  is  a strategic  stronghold  on  the 
southern  border  of  Canaan  ; immediately  accessible  from  the  main 
road  out  of  the  southern  desert,  Canaanward,  yet  secluded  from  it. 
It  is  near  the  trunk -connection  of  the  principal  roads  into  Canaan, 
at  a point  convenient  for  watching  or  seizing  those  roads ; and  it 
has  an  inner  road  northward  separate  from  those  roads,  and  easily 
held  by  itself  at  its  single  mountain  pass. 

It  has  a mountain-encircled  plain,1  of  sufficient  extent  for  the 

1 Of  course  there  are  ways  of  entrance  and  egress  at  several  points ; and  the  wady 
drains  itself,  westerly,  into  one  of  the  branches  of  Wady  el-’Areesh ; but,  as  a whole, 
it  is  mountain-shielded,  and  the  avenues  to  it  could  be  easily  guarded. 


312 


KADESH-BARKEA. 


encampment  of  such  an  army  as  Kedor-la’omer’s,  or  such  a host  as 
Israel’s.  That  plain  is  arable,  capable  of  an  extensive  grain  or 
grazing  supply,  and  with  adjoining  wells  of  the  best  water.  It  is 
a region  where  a mighty  host  could  abide  many  days;  and  as  such 
a region  it  stands  absolutely  alone  among  all  the  localities  yet  dis- 
covered on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  or  near  that  border. 

It  is  just  such  a stronghold  as  would  be  seized  by  a strategist  of 
to-day,  who  should  approach  the  Holy  Land  from  the  southward, 
with  a view  to  the  military  capture  and  occupancy  of  that  land.  It 
is  the  place  of  places  to  have  been  occupied  by  Kedor-la’omer  on 
his  campaign,  or  by  Moses  and  Joshua  in  their  onward  movement 
toward  Canaan.  If  Hobab  did  not  know  of  this  place,  the  Lord 
did ; and  it  would  be  strange  if,  having  formed  such  a strategic 
stronghold  on  the  borders  of  the  land  he  was  preparing  for  his 
people,  he  did  not  lead  them  to  it,  when  the  fulness  of  time  for  the 
purpose  of  its  fitting  had  arrived; 

2.  ’Ayn  Qadees,  with  its  adjoining  plain,  is  the  southernmost 
and  central  point  of  the  obvious  natural  boundary  line  along  the 
southern  border  of  Canaan,  from  the  lower  end  of  the  Head  Sea  to 
the  outgoings  of  Wady  el-’Areesh  into  the  Mediterranean. 

The  Smooth  Mountain,  which  forms  the  northern  wall  of  Wady 
F eqreh,  is  unmistakably  the  southern  wall  of  Canaan,  westerly  of 
the  southern  tongue  of  the  Head  Sea.  The  boundary  line  thus 
begun  at  its  eastern  end,  runs,  by  its  natural  course,  along  Wady 
Feqreh,  until  that  wady  loses  itself  in  Wady  Madurah  at  the  point 
where  Jebel  Madurah — the  Mountain  the  Mountain — forms  a 
pivot,  or  a hinge,  for  a turn  southward  into  the  region  where  ’Ayn 
Qadees  is  a new  pivotal  landmark,  midway  of  this  southern 
boundary  line  from  sea  to  sea.  Thence,  onward,  the  natural  bor- 
der line  passes  into  Wady  el-’Arecsh — which  is,  and  from  time 
immemorial  has  been,  the  southwestern  border  line  of  Canaan, 
Egyptward. 

This  natural  boundary  line  stands  alone  as  a possible  natural 


THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’ AYN  Q AD EES. 


313 


border  limit  of  Canaan  southward.  And  ?Ayn  Qadees  stands  at 
the  centre  of  this  line,  just  as  the  Bible  description  fixes  the 
location  of  Kadesh-barnea. 

3.  Accepting  ’Ayn  Qadees  as  the  site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  secures, 
also,  the  identification  of  every  other  landmark,  in  its  order,  along 
the  southern  boundary  line  of  Canaan,  according  to  the  Bible  text. 

Beginning  at  the  tongue  of  the  Dead  Sea  “ that  looketh  south- 
ward,” the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim,  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  Kadesh- 
barnea,  Hezron,  ’Adar,  Karka’a,  ’Azmon,  the  Wady  of  Egypt,  the 
terminal  outgoing  at  the  Mediterranean;1  all  the  landmarks  of 
that  boundary  are  identified,  without  any  forcing.  And  the  best 
that  can  be  said  of  any  other  proposed  identification  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  is,  that  no  success  has  been  had,  in  connection  with  it,  in  point- 
ing out  the  other  border  landmarks  even  tentatively ; for  an  error 
at  the  central  or  pivotal  point  makes  a hopeless  tangle  of  the  rest 
of  the  line. 

4.  To  identify  Kadesh-barnea  at  *Ayn  Qadees,  is  to  render  clear 
the  movements  of  the  Israelites  toward,  and  away  from,  the 
southern  border  of  Canaan ; as  no  other  identification  of  this  site 
has  done. 

It  would  appear  from  the  Bible  text,  and  the  latest  explorations 
of  the  region  in  question,  that  when  the  Israelites  took  their  de- 
parture from  Mount  Sinai,  they  journeyed  by  the  easternmost  of 
the  three  roads  Canaan  ward ; a road  known  as  the  Mount  Seir 
Boad.  Passing,  on  this  road,  along  Wady  ez-Zulaqah  and  by 
Wady  el-’Ayn,  they  turned  into  Wady  el-’Ateeyeh,  and  thence  de- 
scended to  the  plateau  of  the  Desert  et-Teeh.  They  were  now 
upon  the  “ great  and  terrible  wilderness  ” of  the  peninsula,  and 
they  swept  across  it  to  the  southern  base  of  the  Jebel  Muqrah 
range. 

The  first  encampment  of  the  Israelites  after  leaving  Mount 


1 Num.  34:  3-5;  Josh.  15:  1-4. 


314 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


Sinai,  as  noted  in  their  list  of  stations,1  was  Kibroth-hattaavah,  at 
a three-days  journey  from  their  starting  point.  That  station  was 
probably  southward  of  the  Jebel  et-Teeh  range,  which  divides  the 
lower  peninsula  from  the  mid-desert.  It  may  have  been  at  Erways 
el-Ebayrig,  as  suggested  by  Palmer. 

The  second  encampment  was  at  Hazeroth,  the  “ Place  of  Enclo- 
sures.” 2 It  has  been  common,  since  the  days  of  Robinson,  to 
identify  this  station  with  ?Ayn  el-Hudhera,  also  southward  of 
Jebel  et-Teeh;  but  there  seems  good  reason  for  distrusting  this 
identification,  on  the  ground  of  its  location  and  approaches.3  It 
would,  indeed,  seem  more  probable  that  this  second  formal  encamp- 
ment was  at  the  northern  side  of  the  Desert  et-Teeh ; perhaps  at  the 
southeastern  portion  of  the  Jebel  Muqrah  tract ; a region  which 
has  been  but  casually  examined  by  modern  travelers,  but  of  which 
enough  is  known  to  suggest  its  fitness  for  a camping-place.  *Ayn 
esh-Shehabeh,  one  of  the  proposed  sites  of  Kadesh-barnea,  is  there. 
A road  has  been  discovered,  running  into  the  mountain  tract  from 
the  Desert  et-Teeh,  not  far  to  the  eastward  of  that  spring.4  This 
road  may  be  the  Way  of  the  Mountain  of  the  Amorites,  or  the 
Amorite  Hill-country  Road,  by  which  the  Israelites  are  said  to 
have  approached  Kadesh-barnea.5  And  just  there,  is  a far  more 
probable  locality  for  Hazeroth  (for  the  protecting  “ Enclosures  ” 
of  border-settlers),  than  any  site  in  mid-desert,  or  in  the  shielding- 
mountains  south  of  the  desert. 

It  is  a noteworthy  fact,  as  bearing  on  this  suggestion,  that  the 
Arabs  who  to-day  occupy  that  southeastern  portion  of  the  Jebel 
Muqrah  tract  bear  a name  which  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew 

1 Num.  33 : 1-49.  2 See  page  280/.,  supra. 

3 See  page  78,  supra. 

This  “ ’Ayn  el-IIudhera ” may  be  the  Well  of  an  Enclosure;  a living  spring  in  a 
mountain-enclosed  basin ; but  it  is  not  a place  of,  nor  yet  a place  for,  pastoral  en- 
closures, such  as  the  Hebrew  term,  Hazeroth,  would  indicate. 

4 See  page  82  /.,  supra.  5 Deut.  1 : 19. 


TEE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’AYN  Q AD  EES. 


315 


“Hivites,”  or  “ Villagers.”  Holland,  in  reporting  his  last  trip  to 
the  northern  desert  says:  “ Jebel  Mugrah  belongs  to  the  territory 
of  Haiwat  Arabs,  and  not  to  that  of  the  ’Azazimeh,  as  has  gener- 
ally been  stated.” 1 And  Robinson,  or  rather  Eli  Smith,  has  shown 
that  this  word  “ Haywat  ” (its  singular  being  “ Hay  wy  ”)  corres- 
ponds closely  with  “ Hivite.” 2 It  would  seem,  indeed,  that  the 
Bible  designations  of  Midianite,3  Perizzite  and  Hivite,  corres- 
pond with  the  modern  designations  of  Bed'wy,  Fellah  and  Haywy ; 
the  desert- Arab,  the  life-long  peasant,  and  the  temporarily-settled 
(or  sojourning)  Arab.  In  olden  time,  as  now,  the  border-line 
between  the  Midianite,  or  Bed'wy,  and  the  Perizzite,  or  Fellah, 
was  likely  to  be  occupied  by  the  Dweller  in  Enclosures,  the 
Hivite,  or  Haywy.  Accordingly,  the  vestiges  of  the  ancient 
Hazerim  are  still  to  be  found  along  the  southern  border  of  Pales- 
tine, near  the  desert,4  and  again  along  the  eastern  borders  of  Cen- 
tral Palestine,5  as  exposed  to  desert-approaches  by  way  of  the 
fords  of  the  Jordan.6  This  would  make  probable  the  existence  of 
Hazeroth  (the  Place  of  Hazerim)  there  at  the  southeastern  portion 
of  the  Jebel  Muqrah  tract ; especially  if  the  Way  of  the  Mountain 
of  the  Amorites,  as  taken  by  the  Israelites,  passed  up  along  there. 

At  all  events,  wherever  Hazeroth  may  have  been,  and  whether 

1 Report  of  Brit.  Assoc.,  for  1878,  p.  622  ff. 

2 “Arabic  Index  ” in  Bib.  Res.,  III.,  Append,  p.  211,  first  ed.  3 Gen.  37 : 28. 

4  See  page  290,  supra.  Thus  the  inhabitants  of  Dhahareeyeh  (which  is  to-day  a 

border  town  of  Palestine,  desertward)  are  of  Bed'ween  stock,  although  a settled 
people,  and  they  would  repel  the  suggestion  that  their  settled  life  brings  them  to  the 
level  of  Fellaheen.  They  call  themselves  “Hudhr”  or  villagers,  or  townspeople  (or 
Hivites).  See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  211;  Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  351. 

5  See  page,  281  /.,  supra. 

6  See  Judges  6:  3-6  ; 7 : 1,  12.  Jabin,  the  Canaanitish  king,  or  shaykh,  who  op- 
pressed Israel  in  the  days  of  Deborah,  is  said  to  have  “reigned  in  Hazor”  (Judges 
4:  2).  It  is  not  improbable  that  his  people  were  sojourning-Bed'ween  from  the  east 
of  the  Jordan,  living  in  Hazerim,  within  the  borders  of  Central  Canaan.  The  place 
of  his  head-quarters  finally  came  to  be  a permanent  town,  with  a trace  of  its  earlier 
character  retained  in  its  name.  Sisera  was  “captain  of  the  host  of  Hazor”  (1  Sam.  12:  9)* 


316 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


the  Israelites  passed  into  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract  from  that 
southeastern  corner,  near  Jebel  Muqrah,  or  kept  on  along  the 
southern  face  of  that  tract  until  they  rounded  Jebel  Araeef  en- 
Naqah, — their  third  encampment  was  at  the  strategic  stronghold 
(within  that  tract),  then  known  as  Rithmah,  afterwards  as  Kadesh, 
yet  later  as  En-mishpat,  later  still  as  Meribah-Kadesh,  and  now  as 
Wady  Qadees. 

From  Kadesh-barnea  the  spies  went  northward  by  the  northern 
mountain- road,  which  was  probably  a continuation  of  the  Amorite 
Hill  Country  Road,  but  which,  either  thenceforward  bore  their 
name,  or  was  already  known  as  the  Way  of  Athareem,  or  the  Way 
of  the  Tracks.1  Their  report  provoked  the  rebellion  of  the  Israel- 
ites. Then  followed  the  foolhardy  venture  of  that  people  up  that 
same  mountain-road,  and  their  defeat  at  Esau’s  old  Land  of  Seir. 
After  this,  came  the  well-nigh  forty  years  of  nomadic  life,  with 
Kadesh-barnea  as  the  pivot  of  the  wanderings.  Glimpses  of  the 
different  encampments  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  priestly  headquar- 
ters on  their  circuit,  meantime,  are  given  in  the  next  seventeen 
stations  in  the  formal  list  of  encampments. 

As  the  appointed  period  of  the  wanderings  drew  near  its  close, 
the  tabernacle,  with  its  attendant  ministry,  removed  from  Ezion- 
gaber,  near  the  northern  end  of  the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red  Sea  (the 
extremest  limit  of  the  wanderings2  before  the  final  move  Canaan- 
ward),  and  re-entered  the  sanctuary-stronghold  of  Kadesh-barnea ; 
probably  passing  in  by  the  Way  of  the  Mountain  of  the  Amorites, 
from  the  southeastern  corner  of  the  Jebel  Muqrah  tract.3  “ Then 

1 The  word  athareem  at  Num.  21:  1,  translated  “spies”  in  the  King 

James  Version,  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  really  seems  no 
justification  for  its  rendering  as. “spies.”  “Tracks,”  or  “monuments”  (indicating  a 
way  marked  or  “blazed”  by  signal  cairns,  after  a manner  still  common  in  that 
region),  would  be  justified  from  the  Chaldaic  athar  “a  place,”  or  “a  track.” 

See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v. 

2 Judges  11:  16. 


3Num.  33:  36. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’A  YN  Q AD  EES. 


317 


came  [again]  the  children  of  Israel,  even  the  whole  congregation, 
[from  their  scattered  tenting-places  in  the  wadies  near  and  far]  into 
the  desert  of  Zin,  in  the  first  month  [of  the  fortieth  year  of  the 
exodus]  : and  the  people  abode  in  Kadesh  ; ” 1 and  they  made  new 
history  there. 

There  Miriam  died ; and  was  buried.  From  the  unusual  and 
sudden  demand  upon  the  wells,  or  from  an  exceptional  drought,  the 
waters  of  ’Ayn  Qadees  failed  the  people.  Then,  at  God’s  direc- 
tion, Moses  and  Aaron  gathered  the  assembly  before  the  cliff*  from 
under  which  the  wells  were  supplied,  and  the  miracle  of  the  new- 
flowing  water  followed.  For  their  sin  at  that  time,  the  two 
leaders  were  sentenced  to  die  outside  of  the  Land  of  Promise;2  for 
the  final  entering  of  which,  preparations  were  now  made  speedily. 

The  line  of  contemplated  advance  into  Canaan  at  this  time  was 
a new  one.  Not,  as  seemed  to  be  the  plan  thirty-eight  years  be- 
fore, directly  northward  by  way  of  Beersheba  and  Hebron,  but 
northeasterly,  around  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  through  the 
principal  highway  of  Edom,  or  through  the  road  between  Edom 
and  Moab,  was  the  now  purposed  course.  The  first  move  was  up 
along  the  natural  boundary-line  of  Canaan,  from  Kadesh-barnea, 
through  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  to  the  boundary-hinge  at  Jebel 
Madurah  on  the  plain  of  Moserah;  the  junction  of  wadies  Murrah 
and  Madurah  ; and  this  move  was  made  while  messengers  were  on 
their  way  to  the  kings  of  Edom  and  Moab,  asking  permission  for 
the  purposed  traversing  of  the  territory  of  those  kings.3  There  at 
Jebel  Madurah,  or  Mount  Hor,  on  that  isolated  and  remarkable 
mountain,  at  the  very  border  line  of  the  Land  of  Promise  yet 
outside  of  it,  Aaron  died  and  was  buried  ; and  before  that  moun- 
tain, on  the  borders  of  Edom  yet  not  within  Edom’s  line,  the 
people  mourned  for  thirty  days  over  the  loss  of  their  faithful  high- 


* Num.  20 : 12. 


1 Num.  20:  1. 

3 Num.  20:  14;  Judges  11 : 17. 


318 


KA  DESH-BARNEA . 


priest.1  Meantime,  this  forward  movement  of  re-gathered  Israel 
alarmed  both  the  Edomites  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  neighboring 
Canaanites  on  the  other.  Edom’s  king  refused  his  consent  to 
Israel’s  passing  through  his  territory,  and  he  came  down  against 
Israel  in  force ; “ wherefore  Israel  turned  away  from  him ; ” 2 
turned  about  from  Jebel  Madurah  and  moved  back  southwesterly 
along  the  course  which  had  been  taken  thitherward.  And  as  the 
Israelites  turned  back,  at  this  time,  the  Canaan itish  king  of  Arad 
came  down  against  them,  and  struck  at  them,  probably  at  their 
rear  as  they  were  moving  off,  “and  took  some  of  them  prisoners.”3 

By  whatever  course  the  Israelites  had  originally  entered  Kadesh, 
or  Rithmah,  they  evidently  went  out  from  that  region  by  the 
westerly  route ; for  it  is  said,  that  “ they  journeyed  from  Mount 
Hor,”  at  this  time,  “ by  the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea,  to  compass  the 
land  of  Edom.”4  In  other  words,  they  passed  down  along  by 
Jebel  ’Araeef  en-Naqah,  and  struck  the  Red  Sea  Road,  or  the 
Hajj  route,  so  that  they  could  sweep  well  clear  of  the  western 
possessions  of  Edom  ; not  even  skirting  them  by  the  Way  of  the 
Mountain  of  the  Amorites.  This  took  them  across  the  Desert  et- 
Teeh,  almost  its  entire  stretch  from  west  to  east ; “ and  the  soul  of 
the  people  was  much  discouraged  because  of  the  [Hajj]  Road,”  in 
its  desolateness.  Reaching  the  eastern  edge  of  the  desert,  they 
descended  to  the  ’Arabah,  and  thence  in  due  time  they  passed 
around  the  southern  extremity  of  the  mountains  of  Seir,  by  the 
Way  of  the  ’Arabah,  and  turned  northward  along  the  eastern 
borders  of  Seir  and  Moab,5  until  they  were  finally  opposite  the 
Jordan  at  the  Plains  of  Moab.6 

Whatever  changes  of  minor  details,  in  this  identification  of  the 
course  and  journeyings  of  the  Israelites,  may  be  necessitated  through 


1 Num.  20 : 22-29 ; Deut.  10:6. 

2 Num.  20  : 18-21.  3 Num.  20 : 1 ; 33 : 40. 

4 Num.  21 : 4;  Deut.  1:  40;  Judges  11 : 18. 

6 Deut.  2:  1-8.  6 Num.  22:  1. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  ’ AYN  Q AD  EES. 


319 


fuller  researches  in  that  region  in  the  future,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Bible  narrative  as  a whole  is  found  consistent  with  the  location  of 
Kadesh-barnea  at  ’Ayn  Qadees,  as  it  is  not  with  any  other  identifi- 
cation suggested. 

5.  The  features  and  the  name  of  ’Ayn  Qadees  correspond  with 
the  Bible  references  to  Kadesh-barnea ; as  is  the  case  with  no  other 
site  proposed. 

Wady  Qadees  is  itself  a “ city/7  in  the  probable  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word  thus  translated ; an  encircled  fastness  among  the 
mountains,  easily  guarded  at  a few  entrance-passes.  And  ancient 
ruins  round  about  it  still  mark  it  as  a place  of  old-time  occupancy. 
The  wrater  of  the  fountains  of  Qadees  flows  from  under  just  such 
a Rock,  or  Cliff,  as  would  be  indicated  by  the  term  Sel’a,  the  He- 
brew designation  of  the  Kadesh-Rock — known  afterwards  as 
Reqam.  And  that  Rock  stands,  as  it  were,  in  the  inner  sanctuary ; 
in  the  adytum  of  the  larger  Kadesh  tabernacle,  where  the  leaders 
and  representatives  of  the  Israelites  might  have  been  gathered  to 
witness  the  miracle  of  the  new  water-flow. 

The  camping-field  is  there ; there,  also,  is  the  mountain  pass 
northward.  Nothing  is  lacking  in  the  features  of  the  place  itself, 
to  complete  its  correspondence  with  the  descriptions  and  intimations 
of  the  Bible  text. 

Just  outside  of  this  sanctuary-stronghold,  the  name  Rithmah, 
the  earlier  name  of  the  district  of  Kadesh,  is  still  to  be  found,  in 
its  Arabic  equivalent,  Aboo  Retemat.  And  the  place  itself  bears 
the  equivalent  name  of  Kadesh  in  three-fold  form,  as  Jebel  Qadees, 
Wady  Qadees,  and  ’Ayn  Qadees.  Moreover,  neither  Qadees  nor 
Retemat — Kadesh  or  Rithmah — is  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  all 
that  region.  Even  though  too  much  dependence  ought  not  to  be 
put  on  the  preservation  of  such  names  as  these,  it  must  be  admitted 
by  all,  that  when  the  proof  of  the  location  of  Rithmah  and  Kadesh 
in  just  that  vicinity  is  made  reasonably  conclusive,  by  independent 
evidence,  it  is  certainly  no  objection  to  the  identification  to  find 


320 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


that  the  ancient  names  are  still  to  be  found  there,  as  held  and 
repeated  by  the  unchanging  people  of  that  region. 


7.  FAIR  CONCLUSIONS. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  before  us,  there  are  certain  conclusions 
which  must  be  admitted  as  fair,  if  not  recognized  as  inevitable. 

1.  The  site  of  Kadesh-barnea  seems  identified  at  ’Ayn  Qadees. 
Every  requirement  of  the  Bible-narrative,  and  every  condition 
insisted  on  by  the  critics  as  essential  to  the  identification,  are  met 
in  this  place.  Every  objection,  also,  that  has  been  raised  against 
this  identification,  is  found  to  have  no  force  in  the  light  of  close 
examination. 

2.  This  identification,  with  its  linkings,  necessitates  the  re-shap- 
ing of  much  of  the  geography  of  the  southern  border  of  Palestine 
and  the  neighboring  regions,  as  indicated  in  the  maps,  cyclopedias, 
commentaries,  and  guide-books,  now  in  common  use.  For  exam- 
ple, as  the  westernmost  limit  of  Edom  is  not  indicated  in  the 
Bible  except  by  its  relation  to  Kadesh-barnea,  that  limit  now 
passes  from  an  unknown  to  a known  quantity,  by  the  fixing  of  a 
site  which  is  described  as  just  beyond  it.  So,  also,  the  traditional 
Mount  Hor  must  be  recognized  as  an  impossible  Mount  Hor ; and 
the  central  and  northern  ’Arabah  must  no  longer  be  counted  a 
main  camping-ground  of  the  Israelites  in  their  wanderings. 

3.  It  is  clearer  than  ever,  that  many  of  the  supposed  confusions 
of  geographical  data  in  the  Pentateuch,  are  the  results  of  later 
error  concerning  the  region  in  question.  And  there  is  even 
stronger  reason  than  before  for  believing,  that  Moses  and  Hobab 
were  more  familiar  with  the  desert  of  Sinai  and  the  Negeb  border 
of  Canaan,  than  the  wisest  of  the  destructive  critics  of  to-day. 

4.  The  latest  discoveries  in  the  region  of  Kadesh-barnea  tend  to 
indicate  how  much  need  there  is  of  a fuller  and  more  intelligent 


FAIR  CONCLUSIONS. 


321 


survey  of  all  that  region.  An  unmistakable  inference  from 
that  which  has  thus  far  been  shown  concerning  that  region  is,  that 
there  is  much  more  yet  to  be  learned ; and,  surely  the  lovers  of 
biblical  research  ought  not  to  rest  satisfied  until  the  steps  are 
taken  for  its  learning. 


21 


THE  KOUTE  OF  THE  EXODUS. 


A SPECIAL  STUDY. 


THE  ROUTE  OF  THE  EXODUS. 


1.  THE  BARRIER  TO  ISRAEL’S  PASSAGE. 

Among  the  many  linkings  of  Kadesh,  there  is  a linking  with 
Shur.  Abraham,  as  a pilgrim,  is  said  to  have  passed  a time  be- 
tween Kadesh  and  Shur.1  Kadesh  is  found  to  have  been  a sanc- 
tuary-stronghold on  the  borders  of  the  Land  of  Promise ; and 
Shur  is  found  to  have  been  a fortified  wall  across  the  eastern 
borders  of  Egypt.2  And  as  Ivadesh  proves  to  be  the  key  to  the 
Israelitish  wanderings,  so  Shur  proves  to  be  the  key  to  the  exodus 
of  the  Israelites.  The  primary  barrier  to  the  exodus  was  not  the 
Red  Sea,  but  the  Great  Wall ; and  the  Red  Sea  was  opened,  be- 
cause the  Great  Wall  was  closed. 

A starting-point  of  a proper  study  of  the  route  of  the  exodus 
is,  therefore,  that  border-barrier  of  Egypt  which  stayed  the  Israel- 
ites in  their  flight.  From  what  is  clearly  shown  on  the  monuments 
and  in  the  papyri  concerning  that  Great  Wail  itself,  together  with 
what  is  indicated  of  similar  fortifications  of  its  time,  we  are  en- 
abled to  picture  its  stretch  and  its  main  features  with  tolerable 
exactness. 

In  view  of  its  importance  as  a border-line  fortification,  with  the 
methods  of  warfare  and  the  standards  of  building  as  they  were  in 
that  day,  that  Wall  must  have  been  massive  in  its  structure  and 

1 Gen.  20 : 2.  2 See  pages  46-58,  supra. 


325 


326 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


formidable  in  its  appointments.  In  addition  to  the  many  incidental 
references  to  the  walls  and  gates  of  Thebes  and  Memphis,  which 
abound  in  the  old  records,1  as  illustrative  of  the  measure  of 
strength  and  finish  deemed  desirable  in  structures  of  this  char- 
acter,  there  is  preserved  a monumental  reference  to  one  of  the 
Pharaohs  as  a protector  of  the  exposed  borders  of  Egypt,  which 
shows  clearly  the  standard  then  for  a border-wall  of  the  Forti- 
fied Land.2  It  reads  : “ Thou  art  for  it  as  a fortified  Wall  of 
granite,  whose  battlements  are  square  stone,  and  every  gate  of  it  is 
iron.  The  strangers  enter  not  into  it.”  And  that  such,  substan- 
tially, was  the  Great  Wall  of  Egypt,  there  is  reason  for  supposing.3 
That  this  Wall  would  be  strongly  garrisoned,  and  closely  guarded 
along  its  entire  stretch,  is  what  we  might  suppose  from  the  military 
habits  of  a people  so  much  in  warfare  as  the  Egyptians ; and  the 
record  of  it  stands  explicitly,  that  there  were  i(  watchers  upon  the 
Wall  in  daily  rotation.”4  Moreover,  such  a Wall  would  of  neces- 
sity be  doubly  strengthened  and  supplemented  by  added  fortresses 
(or  “ khetams  ”),  and  by  special  towers  (“  migdols  ” or  “ bekhens  ”) 
of  observation  and  defense,  at  each  and  all  of  the  great  highways 
which  it  covered  and  along  which  an  enemy  would  be  likely  to 
approach  in  force  from  the  North  or  from  the  East.  Nor  are  refer- 

1 See,  e.  g.,  “ Inscription  of  Pianchi  Mer-Amon,”  in  Rec.  of  Past,  II.,  94-97 » 
“ Annals  of  Raineses  III.,”  Ibid,  VIII.,  6,  8,  9,  10,  25,  26,  27.  “ They  proceeded 
to  fortify  Memphis  with  a great  bulwark  made  by  skilful  artizans,  and  a moat  round 
the  eastern  quarter.  No  point  of  attack  was  found  therein.” 

2 See  Brugsch’s  Hieroglyph.  Demot.  Worterb.,  I.,  335/.,  s.  v.}  “ Uarma.” 

Ebers  quotes  this  in  its  significancy  (JEgypt.  u.  die  Buck.  Mose’s , p.  82  /.,  note). 

3 The  question  of  the  strange  lack  of  monumental  ruins  in  the  Delta,  where  gran- 
ite was  largely  used  in  building,  is  treated  by  Zincke,  in  his  Egypt  of  the  Pharaohs , 
pp.  266-284. 

4 See  “ The  Story  of  Saneha,”  in  Rec.  of  Past,  VI.,  135.  “ There,  stood  [on  the 
eastern  border  of  Egypt],  from  the  days  before  Abraham,  the  fortresses,  carefully 
constructed  on  principles  we  are  pleased  in  our  ignorance  to  call  modern,  with  scarp 
and  counter-scarp,  and  ditch  and  glacis,  well  manned  by  the  best  troops,  the  sentinel 
on  the  ramparts  day  and  night.”  (Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  p.  66.) 


KHETAM  AND  ETHAM. 


327 


ences  to  these  fortresses  and  towers  lacking  in  either  the  Egyptian 
or  the  Hebrew  records.1 

Yet  before  tracking  these  towers  and  outworks,  and  the  highways 
which  they  covered,  it  is  important  to  recognize  another  name  than 
Shur  by  which  the  Great  Wall  is  referred  to  in  the  Bible  narrative; 
for  this  other  name  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  story  and 
route  of  the  exodus. 


2.  KHETAM  AND  ETHAM. 

When  the  Israelites  were  fairly  beyond  the  confines  of  Egypt, 
through  their  miraculous  passage  of  the  Bed  Sea,  it  is  said  that 
“ they  went  out  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur ; and  they  went  three 
days  in  the  wilderness,  and  found  no  water.” 2 Becognizing  in 
the  wilderness  of  Shur  the  wilderness  beyond  the  Great  Wall  of 
Egypt,  this  statement  is  easily  understood.  But  in  another  record 
of  their  wanderings,  it  is  said  that  the  Israelites  “ passed  through 
the  midst  of  the  sea  into  the  wilderness,  and  went  three  days’ jour- 
ney in  the  wilderness  of  Etham.”  3 Here  the  term  “ Etham  ” is 
substituted  for  the  term  “ Shur  ; ” and  this  substitution  has  been  a 
perplexity  to  Bible  commentators  as  well  as  to  Egyptian  students. 
Yet  it  is  a point  which  seems  capable  of  a simple  and  satisfactory 
explanation. 


1 For  references  to  such  fortresses  and  towers,  see  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egyptians,  I., 
267  Jf. ; Rec.  of  Past,  II.,  94-97 ; VIII.,  9,  25,  27 ; Brugsch’s  Die.  Geog.,  s.  v., 
“MaktMl”;  his  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  237,  239;  II.,  13,380  /.,  387;  Gen.  11:  4; 
Judges  9:  51;  2 Kings  9 : 17;  18:8;  2 Chron.  26:  9,  10,  15;  Isa.  32:  14;  Jer 
6 : 27  ; etc. 

“ Special  attention,”  says  Brugsch,  “ was  devoted  to  the  fortresses  eastward  of  Tanis, 
which  covered  the  entrance  from  Syria.”  {Hist,  of  Egypt,  IT.,  138.)  Again  {Ibid., 
II.,  98)  he  speaks  of  “ the  entrance  of  the  great  road  ” from  the  East  as  “ covered  by 
‘ khetams/  or  fortresses.” 


* Exod.  15  : 22. 


8 Num.  33 : 8. 


328 


KADESU-BARNEA. 


Etham  is  another  name  for  the  Great  Wall  of  Egypt.  This 
important  fact  seems  to  have  long  escaped  the  attention  of 
scholars ; even  those  scholars  whose  investigations  were  furnishing 
the  evidence  for  its  proving.  Ebers,  discerning  and  accurate  as 
always,  was  the  first  to  catch  a glimpse  of  this  truth  ; 1 yet  he  was 
not  prompted  to  follow  up  his  discovery  to  its  more  important 
legitimate  conclusions;  and  the  truth  in  its  varied  connections 
still  waits  for  that  clearing,  and  that  showing,  which  a fair  exami- 
nation will  not  fail  to  secure  for  it.2 

Both  Ebers3  and  Brugsch4  have  claimed  that  the  Etham  of  the 
Hebrew  text  is  identical  with  the  Khetam  of  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments; and  they  have  shown  that  while  the  latter  word  is  a 
common  name  for  “ fortress/’  or  u closure,”  there  was  evidently  a 
Khetam  at  the  east  of  the  Delta  which  was  distinguished  on  the 
monuments  as  pre-eminently  “ the  Khetam  of  Zor,”  or  Tar ; the 
Fortification,  or  Closure,  of  Lower  Egypt.5  Moreover,  Brugsch  has 
shown  that  “ the  Egyptian  texts,  in  agreement  with  the  notices  of 
the  classic  writers,  speak  only  of  towns  and  forts  on  the  frontier 6 
hence  the  Khetam  of  Zor  is  the  Border-Barrier,  or  Closure,  of 
Mazor,  toward  the  eastern  desert ; or  as  the  Hebrews  would  desig- 
nate it,  the  e(  Etham,  which  is  in  [or  at]  the  edge  of  the  wilder- 
ness.  ' 

And  Brugsch  has  shown8  that  Khetam,  in  the  plural  form, 

1 Gosen  zum  Sinai,  pp.  99,  110,  521,  522;  JEgypt.  u.  die  Buck.  Mose's , p.  81. 

2 I ought,  perhaps,  to  say  just  here,  that  I first  arrived  at  this  identification  of 
Etham  with  the  Great  Wall,  by  an  independent  process  of  investigation,  before  I 
was  aware  that  it  had  been  suggested  by  Ebers.  Yet  I have  now  revised  my  entire 
statement  of  it,  in  order  to  give  full  place  to  the  light  shed  on  it  by  Ebers.  It  will 
be  seen,  however,  that  I undertake  to  carry  out  the  process  of  proof  more  fully  than 
Ebers  attempted. 

3  Gosen  zum  Sinai , pp.  99,  522.  4 Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  12,  387. 

5 Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  387;  also  his  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  637  ff. 

6 Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  381.  7Exod.  13:  20;  Num.  33:  6. 

8 Diet.  Geog.,  p.  647. 


KHETAM  AND  ETHAM. 


329 


“Khetamu”1  (“  Fortifications  ”),  “ is  met  with  very  often  in  the 
[Egyptian]  texts,  without  the  addition  of  a proper  geographical 
name,  which  would  define  its  topographical  position  ; ” yet  where 
the  context,  or  some  accompanying  appellative,  would  show  that 
the  term  is  employed  as  a proper  name,  rather  than  as  a common 
noun.  Thus,  in  one  of  the  famous  Anastasi  Papyri,  which  Brugsch 
has  translated,2  there  is  found  a report  to  a ruler  of  the  Nineteenth 
Dynasty,  by  a subordinate  who  has  “ allowed  the  tribes  of  the 
Shasu  of  the  country  of  Aduma  [Edom],  to  pass  through  the 
strong  fort  Pa-Khetamu  [the  Fortifications]  of  the  king  Minep- 
tah  ” in  the  land  of  Thukoo.  As  Brugsch  says  of  this  writing,  it 
was  made  “certainly  with  the  view  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of 
giving  to  his  superior  a report  on  the  admission  of  foreign  immi- 
grants to  the  Egyptian  soil;”  hence  the  conclusion  is  a fair  one,  if 
indeed  it  be  not  an  inevitable  one,  that  the  border  “ Fortifications” 
which  those  immigrants  were  permitted  to  pass  through,  were  the 
Fortifications  of  the  border;  the  Great  Wall  of  Mazor.  And  as 
Thukoo  seems  to  have  been  a district,  or  region  of  country  (with 
Pithom  as  its  capital,  or  chief  city3)  at  or  near  the  eastern  border 
of  Lower  Egypt,4  it  accords  well  with  all  the  known  facts  in  the 
case  to  find  the  Khetam  of  Zor,  and  the  Khetam  of  Thukoo,  and 
the  Khetam  of  Meneptah,  as  portions,  or  as  appurtenances,  of  the 
Great  Wall — the  Khetam oo  of  the  eastern  border  of  Egypt — 
which  is  upon  the  edge  of  the  wilderness. 

There  are  various  other  references  in  the  papyri  to  the  Khe- 
tamoo,  as  to  the  well-known  Border-Barrier  of  Lower  Egypt, 
desertward.  Thus,  for  another  example,5  a father  writes  of  his 
son’s  recall  to  the  boundary  of  his  own  land  (when  the  son  had 

1 A terminal  4 (or  oo)  is  the  ordinary  sign  of  a plural  noun  or  adjective,  in  the  old 
Egyptian  language. 

2 See  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  247;  also  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  642. 

3 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  232  /.  4 See  Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  520. 

5 Anast.  Pap.,  V.,  13,  as  translated  in  Brugsch’s  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  649. 


330 


KA  DESH-BA  RNEA . 


started  out,  like  San  eh  a/  beyond  “ the  Frontier  Wall  which  the 
king  had  made  to  keep  off  the  Sakti  ”) : “ My  son,  who  was  on 
his  way  to  Phoenicia,  I have  caused  to  return  towards  the  Khecamu 
[the  “ Fortifications  ”]  with  his  companions,  to  re-enter  Egypt” 
Here,  as  in  other  cases,  the  Khetamoo  would  seem  to  be  just  such  a 
well-defined  border-barrier  as  we  know  the  Great  Wall  to  have 
been. 

But  if  added  proof  in  this  direction  were  still  asked  for,  it 
could  be  found  with  equal  explicitness  on  the  pictured  monuments, 
as  in  the  written  papyri.  On  the  outer  wall  of  the  great  hall  of 
the  Temple  at  Karnak,  there  is  a series  of  sculptured  designs,  re- 
presenting the  great  campaign  of  Setee  I.  in  the  north  and  in  the 
east.1 2  In  one  of  these  designs  the  king  is  shown  as  having  reached 
the  border  of  his  own  land,  bringing  with  him  many  captives  and 
other  spoils  of  victory.  As  he  passes  through  the  open  gates  of 
the  Fortifications,  and  crosses  the  bridge  which  spans  the  Great 
Canal  within,  he  is  welcomed  by  the  priests  and  the  princes  of 
Egypt  with  rejoicings  and  with  tributes  of  gratitude.  The  in- 
scriptions accompanying  this  picture  show  that  the  fortification 
which  the  king  is  immediately  passing  is  the  famous  “ Khetam  of 
Zor ; ” the  Border-Barrier  of  Mazor.3  It  certainly  is  most  im- 
probable that  the  priests  and  people  of  Egypt  would  be  represented 
as  waiting  inside  a detached  interior  fortress  for  the  king  to  enter 
its  gates.  But  it  is  a most  probable  supposition,  that  the  king’s 
passing  through  the  gateway  of  the  Great  Wall,  which  we  know 
bordered  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  direction  of  his  coming,  would 
be  recognized  and  pictured  as  his  return  to  his  land  and  his  people. 
And  as  if  to  make  it  clear  beyond  all  controversy  that  it  is  the 
border  Wall  of  Egypt  to  which  the  king  has  now  returned  in 

1 See  page  47  /.,  supra. 

2 Reproduced  in  Lepsius’s  Denkm.,  Abth.  III.,  Bl.  126  and  128. 

3 See  Ebers’s  JEgypt.  u.  die  Buck.  Mose’s,  p.  80  f. ; also  Brugscb’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , 
II.,  19. 


KHETAM  AND  ETHAM. 


331 


triumph,  the  inscription  gives  the  very  words  of  the  king’s  mar- 
shal in  proclaiming  the  royal  victories  ; and  those  words  show  that 
the  triumph  has  been  over  the  hostile  Shasoo1 — the  Arabs,  or 
Bed'ween,  or  Asiatics — whose  sweep  was  u from  the  Khetam  of 
Zor  [or  Tar]  to  Kan’aan.” 2 

As  the  enemies  of  Egypt  were  not  at  this  time  inside  the  Great 
Wall  of  its  eastern  border,3  it  would  here  seem  evident  that  the 
Khetam  of  Zor,  from  which  their  western  boundary  began,  was 
identical  at  one  point  at  least  with  the  Great  Wall  itself.  And  if 
the  Khetam  of  Zor,  or  the  Khetamoo,  and  the  Great  Wall  were 
identical  at  any  one  point,  it  is  natural  that  the  designation  of 
Khetam,  or  Khetamoo,  should  come  to  apply  to  the  Great  Wall  all 
the  way  along  its  course  ; so  that  that  line  would  be  spoken  of  in- 
terchangeably as  the  Fortifications,  or  as  the  Wall. 

Being  influenced  by  his  newer  geographical  theories  of  the  route 


1 “ The  Shashous,  or  Schasu,  was  a generic  term  applied  to  the  Arab  or  Bedouin 
tribes  who  inhabited  the  desert  between  Syria  and  the  northeastern  frontier  of  Egypt ; 
they  were  a great  source  of  annoyance  to  the  Egyptian  kings,  and  were  conquered, 
but  only  for  a short  time,  by  Amenhotep  I.,  of  the  Eighteenth,  and  Seti  I.,  of  the 
Nineteenth  Dynasties.”  (Note  to  the  “ Inscription  of  Nes-Hor,”  by  Paul  Pierret, 
Rec.  of  Past,  VI.,  83.) 

2 See  Lepsius’s  Denkm.,  Abth.  III.,  Bl.  126,  a. ; also  Brugsch’s  Diet.  Geog.,  p. 
591  /. 

3 Brugsch  {Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  12)  would  infer  from  this  picture,  “ that  the  Shasu 
had  pressed  forward  westward  quite  into  the  proper  Egyptian  territory  ; ” and  this 
idea  is  again  expressed  by  him  in  Vol.  II.,  p.  132,  of  his  History.  But  his  own  ex- 
planation of  the  record  of  Setee’s  campaign  shows,  that  at  this  very  time  the  Egyptian 
strongholds  were  occupied  outside  of  the  Great  Wall,  even  beyond  Ostracine  to  Absa- 
qab;  and  it  is  evident  that  while  Aahmes  and  Amenhotep  had  expelled  the  Shasoo 
and  re-walled  them  out  from  the  Delta,  Setee  had  now  undertaken  the  subjugation 
of  them  in  their  roamings,  from  the  Great  Wall,  or  border  Fortification,  of  his  domain, 
to  Kana’an,  a strong  fortress  of  their  remoter  stretch. 

This  fortress  of  Kana’an  has  not  been  identified.  It  is  pictured  as  crowning  a hill- 
top, with  a lake  near  it.  Brugsch  has  strangely  enough  proposed  to  find  it  in  the 
’Arabah,  and  has  suggested  the  Dead  Sea  for  the  lake  (Hist,  of  Egypt.  I.,  248;  II., 
13/).  But  the  route  of  Setee  was  up  northeasterly  toward  Philistia,  not  out  easterly 
across  the  desert;  as  the  places  which  are  known,  in  the  sculptured  record,  abund- 


332 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


of  the  exodus,  Brugsch  has  latterly1  supposed  that  the  Khetam 
of  Zor  of  this  triumphal  representation  at  Karnak,  is  a double 
fortress  at  some  distance  westward  of  the  line  of  the  Great  Wall. 
He  even  says  now  that,  “ according  to  this  drawing,  the  strong 
place  of  Khetam  was  situated  on  both  banks  of  a river  (the  Pelu- 
siac  arm  of  the  Nile),” 2 a stream  “ swarming  with  crocodiles,  and 
with  [its]  banks  covered  with  reeds.” 3 Birch 4 (whose  high  attain- 
ments in  Egyptian  studies  are  less  marked  in  the  realm  of 
geographical  details5)  follows  Brugsch  in  this  surprising  state- 

antly  prove.  And  this  fortress  of  “ Kana’an  ” is  again  referred  to  as  in  the  “ land  of 
Zahi,”  which  comprised  the  Philistine  and  Phoenician  country  (Hist,  of  Egypt , II., 
164,  420) ; and  yet  again,  as  on  the  road  to  Aranatu,  or  the  Orontes  (See  Rec.  of  Past, 
II.,  51).  Its  representation,  on  a detached  hill,  with  a lake  near  it,  together  with 
its  name,  would  seem  to  identify  it  unmistakably  with  Mount  Tabor,  from  the  sum- 
mit of  which  there  is  seen  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  which  is  called  in  the  Egyptian  re- 
cords the  Lake  of  Kaina  (See  Rec.  of  Past  II.,  42,  50) ; and  near  the  base  of  which, 
indeed,  the  sources  of  the  Kishon  form  as  it  were  a lake,  after  a rain.  This  fortress 
is  afterwards  called  Dapur ; but  it  was  specifically  the  fortress  of  the  Plain,  or  the 
Kana’an ; the  stronghold  of  the  plains  of  that  region  including  the  great  Plain  of 
Esdraelon.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Edomitish  Shasoo  were  the  only 
enemies  vanquished  by  Setee.  He  began  with  them,  at  his  own  border  Wall,  and 
swept  on  through  the  land  of  Zahi,  and  up  to  the  key-fortress  of  the  plains  near  the 
Lake  of  Galilee,  smiting  whomsoever  he  met  on  the  way.  Yet  the  Midianites  and 
Amalekites,  and  children  of  the  East,  (the  Shasoo,)  had  sway  in  the  days  of  Judges, 
up  to  that  very  region  (Comp.  Judges  4:  1-13;  5:  14,  19-21;  6:  1-5,  33);  as  they 
may  have  had  in  the  days  of  Setee.  In  fact,  everything  goes  to  identify  the  fortress 
of  Kana’an  with  the  fortress  on  Mount  Tabor. 

1 Brugsch’s  Geographic  (Tafel  XLVIII.)  shows  that  he  had  another  opinion  as  to 
this  Khetam,  before  adopting  his  later  theory  of  the  exodus. 

2 Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  387.  3 Ibid.,  II.,  12.  * Egypt,  p.  115. 

5 As,  for  instance,  when  he  would  find  in  the  Egyptian  “ Gailu,”  or  “ Taru,”  or 
“ Garu,”  “ the  frontier  town  of  Egypt,  probably  Heroopolis,  if  it  is  not  Pithom,  which 
has  been  at  all  times  the  frontier  and  key  of  Egypt”  (Egypt,  p.  115) ; and  again  in 
the  same  place  would  find  “ Pelusium  or  Tsur  ” (Rec.  of  Past,  II.,  38,  note),  which 
as  “ Sin  ” has  generally  been  counted  the  lt  key  to  Egypt ; ” and  yet  again  would  find 
in  this  same  “ Pithom  ” (Egypt,  p.  125)  *'  the  citadel  of  Tanis,”  or  Zoan,  and  this  as 
a stronghold  in  the  line  of  the  Great  Wall  of  Sesostris ; and  once  more  would  find  in 
this  Gailu — Khetam — Heroopolis — Pelusium — Tsur — Sin — Pithom — Tanis — thedwel- 


KHETAM  AND  ETIIAM. 


333 


ment.1  A fatal  objection  to  this  theory  would  seem  to  be  found  in 
an  inscription  on  the  famous  picture  itself,  declaring  that  the  water 
which  the  victorious  king  is  crossing  is  not  a branch  of  the  Nile, 
but  is  “ Ta-Ten&t”  “ The  Cutting  ; ” 2 the  Great  Canal  which  was 
doubtless  protected  by  the  Great  Wall,  or  the  Khetamoo  of  Zor,  in 
the  days  of  this  Pharaoh.3 

As  Ebers  has  suggested,  this  Karnak  picture,  “ in  spite  of  its 
apparent  simplicity  and  naivete,  is  of  the  greatest  significance  and 
importance.” 4 Its  value  in  the  settling  of  several  questions  con- 
cerning the  route  of  the  exodus  is  even  greater  than  has  been 
generally  recognized,  even  after  what  Ebers  has  said  of  it.  That 
Brugsch  could  not  deny  the  force  of  this  hieroglyphic  reference  to 
“ the  cutting,”  is  shown  in  the  fact  that  in  his  “ Geographic  des  Alten 
iEgyptens”5  he  gave  a sketch  of  the  Karnak  picture,  and  marked 
as  the  “ Kanal  von  Heroopolis  ” the  very  stream  which  he  now 
calls  “ the  Pelusiac  arm  of  the  Nile  ; ” and  at  the  same  time  he 
marked  the  water  into  which  this  canal  entered  as  “ Der  heutige 
Birket  Timseh  See  ” (“the  modern  Lake  Timseh”).  But  that  was 
before  his  adoption  of  an  old-time  theory  of  the  exodus  required 
of  Brugsch  a re-arranging  of  the  identifications  of  sites  in  Lower 
Egypt,  and  an  “ improvement  ” on  the  plain  declarations  of  the 
hieroglyphic  inscriptions.6 

ling  place  of  “the  hostile  Shasu  ” in  the  days  of  Setee  I.  ( Egypt , p.  114).  Or  yet 
again,  when  he  would  find  Saneha  stopping  at  a town  in  Lower  Egypt  of  the  13th, 
or  Heliopolite  nome,”  some  time  after  he  had  passed  the  Great  Wall,  and  entered  the 
thirsty  desert  ( Rec . of  Past,  VI.,  136,  note). 

1 And  Geikie  ( Hours  with  the  Bible,  II.,  172  /.)  actually  crosses  the  Tanitic  arm 
of  the  Nile  on  this  bridge.  Can  he  have  been  misled  by  the  Egyptian  designation  of 
the  canal — Ta-  Tenat  f 

2 The  inscription  is  between  the  banks  of  the  pictured  stream  (See 

Lepsius’s  Benkm.y  Abth.  III.,  Bl.  128,  a),  in  the  form  here  given  in  the 
margin.  3 See  p.  51  /.,  supra. 

4 Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  23.  5 Tafel  XLVIII. 

6 Brugsch,  indeed,  comes  back  to  the  “ Cutting  ” idea  in  his  later  Geo- 
graphical Dictionary  (p.  591). 


334 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Once  more,  the  famous  poem  of  Pentanr  (a  copy  of  which 
appears  on  another  face  of  the  same  wall  at  Karnak  which  presents 
the  sculptured  records  of  Setee)  brings  out  the  fact  that  Khetam  [or 
Khetamoo]  was  the  Great  W all  of  Egypt.  Beginning  with  the 
accustomed  tribute  to  the  king1  (Bameses  II.),  whose  heroic  ex- 
ploits are  now  to  be  recorded,  the  poem  details  the  preparations  for 
a great  campaign,  as  preliminary  to  the  move  from  the  Pharaonic 
capital.2  “ After  the  king  had  armed  his  people  and  his  chariots, 
and  in  like  manner  the  Shardonians,  which  were  once  his  prisoners, 
....  then  was  the  order  given  them  for  the  battle.  The  king  took 
his  way  downwards,  and  his  people  and  his  chariots  accompanied 
him,  and  followed  the  best  road  on  their  march.”  And  they  came 
to  the  borders  of  the  Walled  Land.  Only  the  Great  Wall  itself 
was  to  be  passed  before  they  were  on  the  desert-road  northward. 
“ In  the  fifth  year,  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  Payni,  the 
fortress  of  Khetam  of  the  Land  of  Zar  [the  Fortifications  of  the 
Walled  Land3]  opened  to  the  king.  ...  As  if  he  had  been  the  god 
of  war,  Monthu  himself,  the  whole  world  trembled  [at  his  ap- 
proach], and  terror  seized  all  enemies  who  came  near  to  bow  them- 
selves before  the  king.  And  his  warriors  passed  by  the  path  of  the 
desert,  and  went  on  along  the  roads  of  the  north.”  The  Great  Wall 
itself  being  recognized  in  the  Khetam  [or  Khetamoo]  here  men- 
tioned, and  this  opening  of  its  gates  is  a fit  opening  for  the  heroic 
poem ; but  to  count  this  Khetam  as  a single  border  fortress  which 
the  king  went  into  and  out  of,  is  to  belittle  alike  the  poem  and  its 
theme.  Picture  and  poem  combine  to  show  that  the  Khetam  of 
Zor  is  the  Great  Wall  of  Lower  Egypt. 

1 “ King  Rameses  Miamun — May  he  live  for  ever ! ” Here  is  the  earlier  equivalent 
of  the  “ God  save  the  king”  which  was  the  cry  of  the  Israelites  at  the  inauguration 
of  Saul  (1  Sara.  10  : 24),  and  which  is  echoed  in  every  land  of  a king  to-day. 

2 This  beginning  of  the  poem  of  Pentaur  is  not  given  in  Lushington’s  translation 
(in  Bee.  of  Past,  II.,  65  Jf.).  I quote  from  Brugsch’s  translation  (in  his  Hist,  of 
Egypt,  II.,  56). 

3  These  bracketed  words  are  of  my  insertion. 


KHETAM  AND  ETHAM. 


835 


As  to  the  correspondence  of  the  Egyptian  word  “ Khetam  ” 
with  the  Hebrew — or  the  Hebraized — word  “ Etham,”  there  is 
more  than  a mere  probability.  Brugsch’s  first  assertion  of  it  as  a 
fact1  did  not  give  it  full  acceptance  with  philologists.2  After- 
wards Brugsch  strengthened  his  claim  by  argument;3  and  Ebers4 
added  to  the  force  of  the  evidence  already  produced.  Even  more 
than  all  that  has  been  shown  by  these  two  scholars  can  be  brought 
forward  in  support  of  the  claimed  correspondence. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  students  of  Egyptology  that  in  the  days  of 
the  Hebrew  exodus,  and  earlier,  there  was  a notable  intermingling 
of  the  Egyptian  and  Semitic  languages  in  Lower  Egypt.  “ The 
memorial  stones,  coffins,  and  rolls  of  papyrus  found  in  the  ceme- 
teries of  ancient  Egypt,”  says  Brugsch,5  “testify  the  undoubted 
presence  of  Semitic  persons,  who  were  settled  in  the  valley  of  the 

Nile,  and  had,  so  to  speak,  obtained  the  rights  of  citizenship 

We  only  need  to  glance  over  Lieblein’s  valuable  list  of  Egyptian 
proper  names,  to  be  fully  persuaded  of  this  fact.”  By  this  inter- 
mingling of  the  races,  not  only  did  Semitic  words  come  into 
frequent  use  in  Egypt,  but  the  blended  peoples  “ even  turned 
Egyptian  words  themselves  into  Semitic,  by  a dissection  of  the 
syllables,  if  we  may  use  such  an  expression.” 6 This  being  the  case, 
we  cannot  wonder  at  finding  an  Egyptian  word  adopted  into  He- 
brew with  more  or  less  of  a provincial  cast  in  its  re-shaping. 

Brugsch  and  Ebers  have  shown  that  the  rejection  of  the  initial 
Jche  in  the  Egyptian  word  “ khetam  ” is  thoroughly  in  accordance 

1 Khetam,  the  meaning  of  which  * a shut-up  place/  * fortress/  completely  agrees 
with  the  Hebrew  Etham  (Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  234).  ” 

2 “ It  should  be  remarked  that  Professor  R.  Smith  [W.  Robertson  Smith],  looking 
at  the  question  from  a philological  point  of  view,  regards  Brugsch’s  identification  of 
the  Khetam  of  the  monuments  with  the  Etham  of  Exodus  as  quite  inadequate.” 
(Greville  Chester,  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Special  Papers,”  p.  97.) 

3  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  637.  4 Gosen  sum  Sinai,  p.  521. 

5 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  241.  6 jffist.  0f  Egypt,  I.,  242. 


336 


KA  DESII-  BA  RNEA . 


with  the  Egyptian  language,  and  that  it  appears  in  the  Coptic,  in 
thorn  (-©ABSA,),  thorn  and  tom  which  are  substantives 

meaning  “ closure,”  and  u walling,”  and  which  are  radically  con- 
nected with  the  Coptic  verb  shetem , “ to  shut.”  Brugsch  further 
claims  that  the  E,  or  A (N),  of  the  Hebrew  “ Etham  ” may  fairly 
be  taken  as  a representative  of  the  Egyptian  khe ; that  the  root 
khatam  is  common  to  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  as  well  as  to  Egyptian ; 
that  changes  similar  to  that  of  the  Egyptian  khe  into  the  Hebrew 
E}  take  place  in  the  Hebrew  itself,  as  for  instance  atam  and 
khatham , both  meaning  “ to  shut,”  “ to  close ; ” which  are,  in  spite 
of  the  difference  of  a and  kh9  and  t ( teth ) and  th  ( tan ) incontrover- 
tibly  connected  by  root. 

The  Septuagint  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  “ Etham  ” is  Othom 
(*  OOubfj),  which  shows  a variation  from  the  present  Hebrew  text  in 
vocalization  at  least.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Arabic  word 
(pjel  ) othm , or  othom  ; uthm , or  uthum , means  “ citadel ; ” “ forti- 
fication built  from  stones.”  The  Arabic  word  corresponds  with 
the  Hebrew  “ Etham  ” in  all  the  consonants  except  one ; the  th  is 
a tha  instead  of  a ti — which  would  be  the  literal  representation  of 
the  Hebrew  th.  This  variation  is  not  uncommon,  as  an  actual 
count  and  comparison  shows ; it  takes  place  oftenest  in  cases  where 
the  corresponding  Aramean  form  shows  a teth  (Arabic  tha). 
In  these  cases  there  often  exist  side  by  side,  in  the  Aramaic,  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  Arabic,  forms  in  both  teth  (or  tha)  and  tau  (or 
ti) ; as  for  example  in  kathaph  (10^)  and  9 athapha  (L^M  which 
are  radically  connected  and  show  this  variation,  with  another  also. 
It  is  certainly  not  unreasonable  to  suspect  a similar  historical  vari- 
ation in  the  “ Etham  ” case ; inasmuch  as  there  are  found  in  the 
Hebrew  itself  two  verbs,  khatham  (D^7,  tau  for  th),  and  khatam 
(DC^,  teth  for  t),  both  meaning  radically,  according  to  Fiirst,1  “ to 
close ; ” also  an  atam  (D9^),  with  the  same  meaning.  These  three 


1 Heb.  u.  Chald.  Worterb s.  vv.  D^n,  Dtpn, 


THE  THREE  ROADS  DESERTWARD . 


337 


words  in  the  Hebrew  plainly  corroborate  the  other  evidence  of  the 
connection  of  Etham  with  khetam,  “ to  close ; ” and  also  with  the 
Arabic  othom , “ a citadel/’  or  “ a fort.” 1 

It  appears  to  be  evident,  therefore,  that  the  common  Egyptian 
noun  “ khetam  ” (“  a fortress,”  or  “ a closure  ”),  came  to  be  applied 
as  a proper  name  to  the  Khetam,  or  the  Khetamoo  of  Zor ; to  the 
Great  Wall,  or  the  strong  line  of  Fortifications,  on  the  eastern 
frontier  of  Lower  Egypt,  along  the  edge  of  the  wilderness.  The 
Egyptians  called  this  border-barrier,  indifferently,  by  their  own 
name,  Anboo,  or  Khetamoo  ; the  Wall,  or  the  Fortifications.  The 
Hebrews  called  it  indifferently  by  their  own  pure  Hebrew  name 
“ Shur  [the  Wall]  which  is  before  Egypt,”  and  by  the  Hebraized- 
Egyptian  name  “ Etham  [the  Fortifications]  at  the  edge  of  the 
wilderness.”  Naturally  therefore,  the  desert  which  was  just  be- 
yond the  Great  Wall  was  known  to  the  Hebrews,  indifferently,  as 
“the  Wilderness  of  Shur,”  or  “the  Wilderness  of  Etham.” 


3.  THE  THREE  ROADS  DESERTWARD. 

From  the  earliest  historic  days,  there  seem  to  have  been  three 
great  highways  out  of  Lower  Egypt  eastward.  Each  of  these 
roads  had  its  well  known  cognomen,  or  descriptive  title,  by  which 
it  was  spoken  of  in  the  days  of  the  Hebrew  sacred  writings,  and 
by  which  it  would  be  instantly  recognized  by  Hebrews  and  Egyp- 
tians alike.  These  three  roads  passed  out,  at  the  left,  at  the 
centre,  and  at  the  right,  as . one  faced  eastward  from  the  Delta. 
They  were  called,  in  that  order:  “the  Way  of  the  Land  of  the 
Philistines,”2  “the  Way  of  Shur,”3  “the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea,”  or 


Since  the  above  was  in  type  I find  that  the  very  word  atem  (or  etam)  “to  shut 


up  ” existed  in  the  ancient  Egyptian  ^ /j 

of  Hierog.  p.  12.  This  seems  decisive. 

2 Exod.  13:  17. 


See  McCauley’s  Diet. 

3 Gen.  16:  7. 


22 


338 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


“the  Way  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea;”1  or,  “the  Philistia 
Road,”  “the  Wall  Road,”  and,  “the  Red  Sea  Road.”2 

Our  English  translation  has  misled  many  readers  into  the  belief 
that  the  term  used  in  designating  these  well-known  roads,  “the 
way  of,”  necessarily  indicated  “ in  the  direction  of,”  or  “ by,”  or 
“toward;”  but  the  Hebrew  word  employed  (tjTi ; derekK)  means 
literally  a “ road,”  a “ beaten  track,”  a “ trodden  course.”  3 It  is  * 
translated  in  several  instances,  “ highway  ; ” as,  “ the  king’s  high- 
way.” 4 

Traces  of  all  three  of  these  great  highways  out  of  Egypt  are  to 
be  found  to-day,  as  they  could  have  been  found  at  any  time  since 
the  days  of  Abraham  and  the  early  Pharaohs. 


4.  THE  PHILISTIA  ROAD. 

“ The  Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,”  or  the  northernmost 
road  of  the  three,  was  the  road  more  commonly  taken  by  the 
Pharaohs  on  their  expeditions  into  Canaan  and  Syria.  It  is 
spoken  of  by  Brugsch  as  “ the  old  royal  road  along  the  coast  of 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  well-known  ( road  of  the  Philistines  ’ 
of  Scripture,  the  road  Zahi  of  the  monuments.”5  Strabo6  de- 
scribes it  as  coming;  in  near  Pelusium,  from  the  regions  east  of 
Egypt.  It  crossed  the  line  of  lakes  which  form  the  bed  of  the 

1  Exod.  13:  18 ; Num.  14:  25;  21:  4;  Deut.  1:  40;  2:  1. 

2 Bruce  ( Travels , I.,  239/.)  described  these  three  roads  out  of  Egypt  eastward, 
although,  like  so  many  others,  he  did  not  observe  that  they  were  named  in  the  Bible 
text.  His  testimony  is  all  the  more  valuable  in  its  impartiality,  from  the  fact  that 
he  thinks  that  no  one  of  these  roads  was  taken  by  the  Israelites  in  their  exodus. 

3 The  term  is  still  in  common  use  among  the  Arabs.  See,  e.  g.,  the  references  in 
the  notes  of  Professor  Palmer  (Besant’s  Life  of  Palmer , p.  293)  to  “the  ‘Way  of 
Wady  Remliah/  the  ‘Way  Atrabin,’  and  the  ‘Way  of  the  Hajj.’ ’’  (See,  also, 
p.  74  /.,  supra.) 

4  Num.  20:  17;  21 : 22.  5 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  336. 

6 Geog.,  Bk.  XVII.,  chap.  I.,  § 21. 


THE  PHILISTIA  ROAD. 


339 


modern  Suez  Canal,  just  north  of  Lake  Ballah,  at  a point  still 
known  as  “ El-Qantarah/7  1 “ the  Bridge/7  or  “ the  Arch/7  or  “ the 
Span  j 77  where,  before  the  days  of  the  canal,  the  modern  caravan 
route  between  Egypt  and  Syria  passed  over  a two-arched  bridge,2 
in  the  line  of  “ the  caravan  route 77  which  Ebers  specifies  as  “ lead- 
ing in  ancient  times  from  Syria  into  Egypt.77  3 Its  passage  of  the 
Great  Wall  must  have  been  at  some  distance  northeast  of  this 
bridge.  The  “ Peutinger  Tables  77  4 would  seem  to  show  that  the 
Homan  road  in  this  direction  ran  close  along  the  Mediterranean 
shore. 

1  This  Arabic  term  El-Qantarah  js  translated  by  Freytag  (Lexicon,  s.  v.) 

“ the  bridge.”  Palmer  (“  Name  Lists,”  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  pp.  23,  63,  162,  etc.) 
translates  it  “the  arch.”  It  seems  to  differ  from  “ Jisr ” ( ) or  “Gisr” 

(the  Arabic  ^ is  pronounced  as  hard  “g”  in  Egypt,  and  as  “g”  soft,  or  “ j ” in 
Syria  and  Arabia),  also  sometimes  translated  the  “ bridge,”  in  that  it  has  the  idea  of 
a “ span,”  either  by  archway  or  other  open  stretch,  while  the  latter  may  be  a solid 
causeway.  As  to  this,  see  a foot-note  a few  pages  farther  on.  This  passway  of  the 
northern  road  to  Syria  is  also  called  “ Qantarat  el-Khazneh,”  or  similarly  “ Gisr  el- 
Qanateer,”  “ The  Bridge  of  the  Treasury.”  (See  the  Topographical  Chart  of  Egypt 
in  the  Atlas  of  Napoleon’s  Descript,  de  VEgypte;  BerchSre’s  Le  Desert  de  Suez,  p.  41 ; 
Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  426 ; Baedeker’s  Lower  Egypt,  p.  422  /. ; also  “ Map  of 
the  Delta  ” in  the  latter.)  Is  this  a reference  to  the  ancient  store-houses,  or  grain 
magazines,  or  “ treasure-cities  ” (Exod.  1 : 11),  to  which  this  passway  was  a prominent 
approach  ? Or  does  it  indicate  an  Oriental  estimate  of  the  Delta  as  the  great  treasury 
of  food  for  the  Outside  world  ? “All  countries  came  into  Egypt,  ...  for  to  buy  corn  ” 
(Gen.  41:  57).  Tacitus  {Hist.  Bk.  III.,  chap.  8)  speaks  of  (ijEgyptus  claustra  anno- 
nx :”  “ Egypt  the  treasure-house  [“  closure”]  of  corn  [“  annual  produce  ”].  “ Egypt 
. . must  have  been  to  the  wandering  tribes  of  Asia  what  the  Roman  empire  was  to 
the  Celtic  and  Gothic  races  when  they  first  crossed  the  Alps.  Egypt  is  to  them  the 
land  of  plenty,  whilst  the  neighboring  nations  starve ; its  long  strip  of  garden-land 
was  the  Oasis  of  the  primitive  world.”  (Stanley’s  Sinai  and  Pal.,  Introduction,  p. 
xxx.  /.) 

2  Berchere’s  Le  Desert  de  Suez , p.  53. 

3  Ebers’s  Piet.  Egypt,  II..  21. 

And  Poole  ( Cities  of  Egypt,  p.  114)  adds:  “The  frontier  wall  has  disappeared, 
with  its  forts,  but  the  eastward  road,  whereby  the  great  armies  of  Egypt  went  to  war 
in  Syria,  is  yet  followed  by  the  caravans.” 

4  See  a copy  of  these  in  Menke’s  Bibelatlas,  No.  VI. 


340 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


5.  THE  WALL  ROAD. 

“ The  Way  of  Shur,”  or  the  central  road  of  the  three,  is  made 
known  to  us  chiefly  by  its  mention  in  the  Bible ; although  helps 
to  its  identifying  are  not  wanting  outside  of  the  sacred  text.  The 
Bible  references  to  it  are  commonly  from  the  Canaan  direction ; 
going  toward  Egypt,  rather  than  coming  from  Egypt.  It  was  the 
central  road  through  Canaan,  lengthwise,  as  it  was  the  central  road 
into  and  out  of  Egypt.  It  came  down  through  Hebron  and  Beer- 
sheba,  about  half  way  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Dead  Sea. 

When  Hagar  fled  from  Hebron,  before  the  birth  of  Ishmael, 
she  went  down  into  the  wilderness  to  the  fountain  on  the  Wall 
Road.1  The  road  she  took  seems  to  have  been  the  road  which 
Abraham  had  taken  into  and  out  of  Egypt ; 2 and  down  along 
which  he  afterwards  moved  by  stages  until  he  sojourned  between 
Kadesh  and  the  Wall.3  It  was  probably  along  this  route  that 
Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  by  the  way  of  Beersheba  and  south- 
ward, “ in  the  wagons  which  Pharaoh  had  sent  to  carry  him,” 4 
when  he  moved  thither  with  his  family  at  the  invitation  of 
Joseph.  Incidental  proof  of  this  is  given  in  the  Septuagint 
statement,  that  at  that  time,  “ Joseph  having  yoked  his  chariots  went 
up  to  meet  Israel  his  father  at  Heroopolis;”5  for  no  probable 
location  of  Heroopolis  would  put  that  city  on  the  route  from  the 
then  capital  of  Egypt  to  the  Philistia  Road  into  the  Delta.  Again, 
presumably,  it  was  along  the  Way  of  Shur  that  Joseph  went  up 
to  Hebron  and  returned  thence,  on  the  occasion  of  the  burial  of 
his  father  ,6  for  Hebron  was  on  that  Wall  Road. 

1 Gen.  16 : 7.  2 Gen.  12 : 6-10 ; 13 : 1-3.  3 Gen.  18  : 1 ; 20 : 1. 

4 Gen.  46:1-7.  5 Gen.  46:29. 

6 Gen.  50:  7-14.  “ The  route  taken  by  Jacob’s  funeral  procession  was  evidently 

along  the  usual  caravan  road  between  the  Delta  and  Hebron.  . . . The  Egyptian  at- 

tendants waited  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  Beersheba,  while  the  Hebrews 


THE  WALL  ROAD . 


341 


As  each  of  the  other  roads  passed  the 
Great  Wall  at  one  of  its  flanks,  the  Wall 
Road  probably  passed  it  at  its  centre. 
West  of  the  Wall,  its  course  was  probably 
between  Lake  Ballah  and  Lake  Timsah, 
near  the  northern  end  of  the  latter,  across 
the  high  table  land  El-Gisr  ; “ The  Bridge,” 
“ The  Causeway,”  or  “ The  Threshold.” 1 
This  would  bring  it  not  far  from  the  site 
of  the  modern  Station  Isma’ileeya. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  diagram  of  a 
section  through  the  Isthmus  of  Suez, 
along  the  line  of  the  modern  canal,  given 
herewith,  that  the  plateau  of  El-Gisr 
is  the  highest  ground  between  the  two 


went  alone  through  the  winding  passes  up  to  the  an-  g 
cestral  sepulchre  at  Hebron  ’’(Drew’s  Scrip.  Lands,  p. 

38,  note). 

1 The  Arabic  “ Gisr  ” ( ) is  commonly  trans- 

lated the  “ Bridge  ” (See,  e.  g.,  Eli  Smith’s  Arabic  In- 
dex ” in  Robinson’s  Rib.  Res.,  first  ed.,  III.,  Append., 
p.  215;  Palmer’s  “ Name  Lists,”  Surv.  of  West  Pal., 
pp.  22,  43,  127,  etc. ; also  Freytag’s  Lex.  s.  v.  “ Gisr”). 

But  Freytag  also  renders  it  a “causeway”  (“  Via  la- 
pidibus  strata,”  French  “ chaussee”).  Again,  it  is 
sometimes  rendered  “ the  threshold.”  “ ‘ El-Gisr  ’ 
in  Arabic  signifies  ‘ elevation,’  and  corresponds  very 
nearly  with  our  word  ‘threshold’ ’’ (Berchere’s  Desert 
of  Suez,  p.  64.  See,  also,  Baedeker’s  Lower  Egypt , p. 

422).  Again  (according  to  Dr.  H.  H.  Jessup,  of  Bay- 
root),  it  is  a term  applied  to  the  larger  beams  or 
stringers  of  the  ceiling  of  a house;  beams  which 
bridge  the  space  between  the  walls,  while  they  may  jn 
serve  as  a threshold,  or  sill,  of  the  rooms  above.  It 
will  be  seen  that  whether  the  term  as  applied  to  this 
plateau,  be  understood  as  “ The  Bridge,”  “ The  Causeway,” 
it  plainly  suggests  the  idea  of  a main  passage  just  here. 


Ijijijiijiiliiliiiiij'j:!  I? 
| : ' '■  s 


1 !_JS= 

j OjfVfrwisAH 


or  “The  Threshold,” 
Justinian  ( Instit .,  Lib. 


342 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


shores ; and  it  is  probable  that  such  has  been  the  case  in  all  this 
geological  epoch.1  It  is  true  that  there  has  been  much  of  fanciful 
speculation  on  this  jjoint,  together  with  no  little  of  honest  doubting 
and  inquiry ; but  the  finally  gathered  facts  of  the  case  would 
seem  sufficient  to  put  the  matter  at  rest,  within  the  limits  of  the 
above  statement.  The  first  careful  surveys  and  scientific  exami- 
nations of  Lower  Egypt  as  a whole,  in  modern  times,  were  made 
by  the  great  French  Commission  under  General  Bonaparte  (a.  d. 
1798-1801) ; and  the  Maps  and  Memoirs  of  that  Commission,  as 
published  in  the  early  part  of  this  century,  are  still  invaluable 
as  a thesaurus  of  information  on  many  of  the  special  points 
which  they  cover.  The  essay  of  M.  Roziere  on  the  “ Ancient 
limits  of  the  Red  Sea,”2  includes  a full  discussion  of  scientific 
and  historic  indications  of  the  changes  in  the  configuration  of  the 
Isthmus  of  Suez ; and  his  conclusion  is,  that  both  geology  and 
history  go  to  show  that  that  region  has  been  substantially  as  at 
present  during  all  this  geological  epoch.3  Any  independent  and 
thorough  investigation  must  reach  the  same  conclusion. 

Between  the  Bitter  Lakes  and  the  present  head  of  the  Gulf 
of  Suez,  there  stand  the  heights  of  Shaloof,  an  impassable  barrier  to 
the  waters  of  the  Gulf,  and  which  are  clearly  of  the  tertiary  for- 

I.,  Tit.  XII.,  35)  says  that,  as  “ the  thresholds  make  a certain  boundary  in  a 
house,  so  also  the  ancients  designed  that  the  boundary  of  the  empire  should 
be  its  threshold.  Hence  also  it  was  called  the  threshold.”  Wilkinson  ( Anc . Egypt., 
I.,  71)  andBrugsch  (Hist.  Egypt , II.,  388)  translate  “ Gisr  ” as  “ Dyke;”  they,  per- 
haps, having  in  mind  its  “ causeway  ” signification. 

1 The  diagram  given  is  from  Proceedings  of  Inst,  of  Mech.  Engineers  (England), 
for  1867,  accompanying  a paper  by  M.  Borel,  of  Paris. 

2 " Memoire  sur  les  Anciennes  Limites  de  la  Mer  Rouge,”  in  3Iemoires  sur 
VEgypte  (Vol.  I.,  pp.  187-192),  Paris,  1803. 

3 It  is  true  that  another  member  of  this  Commission  (M.  Du  Bois  Aym6,  in  Yol. 
VIII.,  pp.  77-143  of  thi#  work)  incidentally  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  for- 
mer limits  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  were  greater  than  now ; but  he  brings  no  new  facts  in 
support  of  that  position,  nor  does  he  argue  the  question,  like  M.  Roziere. 


THE  WALL  ROAD. 


343 


mation,  hence  not  formed  within  the  period  of  the  human  habit* 
ancy  of  the  globe.  These  heights  are  a continuation  of  the 
prominent  heights  of  Geneffeh,  at  the  west  of  the  Bitter  Lakes, 
and  would  seem  to  shut  off  the  possibility  of  a union  of  those 
Lakes  and  the  Gulf.  On  this  point  M.  Mauriac,  the  engineer  of 
the  Suez  Canal  Company,1  was  positive,  in  view  of  his  study  of  the 
case.  In  his  correspondence  with  President  Bartlett,  he  held  that 
“ the  ridge  of  Chaloof  is  now  far  above  the  highest  known  seas ; ” 
that  “ it  is  of  the  same  age  with  the  mountain  Geneffeh,  of  which 
it  is  a kind  of  buttress  or  prolongation  ; ” that  the  overflow  of  the 
Bed  Sea  into  the  basin  of  the  Bitter  Lakes,  which  left  there  the 
existing  strata  of  salt,  “ could  not  have  taken  place  during  the 
present  geological  condition  of  the  globe  ;”  that  the  level  of  the 
Bed  Sea  has  not  materially  changed  within  this  geological  epoch  ; 
and  that  there  has  been  “ no  communication  of  the  Lakes  with  the 
Bed  Sea  except  in  pre-liistoric  times.” 2 

Again,  Dr.  Ivlunzinger,  a naturalist  of  no  mean  degree,  who 
went  to  Egypt  directly  in  the  interests  of  science,  and  u with  the 
special  object  of  making  zoological  investigations  and  collections  on 
the  Bed  Sea,”3  has  recently  furnished  important  testimony  on  this 
point,  as  a result  of  observations  in  his  particular  sphere.  He  says : 
“ The  arm  of  sea  which  springs  from  the  great  Indian  Ocean,  and 
bears  the  name  of  Bed  Sea  or  Arabian  Gulf,  is  a genuine  tropical 

1 Reference  is  here  made  to  M.  Mauriac’s  correspondence  with  President  Bartlett 
in  the  latter’s  work,  From,  Egypt  to  Palestine  (pp.  156-164),  which  contains  a good 
exhibit  of  facts  bearing  on  this  discussion. 

2 Bartlett  shows  that  Fraas  ( Aus  dem-  Orient , p.  173),  and  Ritt  {Hist,  de  Vlsth.  de 
Suez,  p.  5),  agree  with  Mauriac  as  to  the  tertiary  formation  of  Shaloof;  although  the 
latter  would  like  to  introduce  an  earthquake  for  its  later  uplifting,  in  order  to  suit 
his  theory  of  the  exodus.  Indeed  Ritt  makes  no  claim  that  there  are  any  signs 
of  volcanic  action  there.  His  reasoning  seems  to  be,  that  as  his  theory  of  the 
changes  of  the  Isthmus  is  not  to  be  reconciled  with  that  ridge  as  it  is,  it  is  easier  to 
introduce  an  earthquake  than  to  change  his  theory. 

3  Upper  Egypt , Preface. 


344 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


sea,  although  it  stretches  northwards  far  beyond  the  tropic. 
Though  it  is  separated  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea  only  by  the 
Isthmus  of  Suez,  in  the  character  of  its  animal  life  it  is  sharply 
distinguished  from  the  former  sea,  and  only  a few  cosmopolitan 
forms  are  common  to  both,  a proof  that  in  recent  epochs  at  least 
there  has  been  no  communication  between  the  two.” 1 

In  addition  to  this  aspect  of  the  scientific  probabilities  of  the 
case,  the  historic  evidence  available  is  all  in  the  same  direction. 
Herodotus2  was  specific  in  giving  “ the  shortest  and  quickest  dis- 
tance ” between  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  at  Mount  Casius, 
and  the  Arabian  Gulf,  or  Gulf  of  Suez,  as  “ exactly  a thousand 
stadia ” — or  Homan  furlongs.  This  would  show  a distance,  at 
that  time,  by  the  quickest  route,  of  about  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
English  miles;3  somewhat  more  than  the  present  width  of  the 
Isthmus.  This  testimony,  of  upwards  of  twenty- three  centuries 
ago,  carries  us  back  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  way  to  the  days 
of  Moses  ; and  it  goes  to  show  that  whatever  changes  have  taken 
place  in  the  coast  lines  meantime,  have  tended  to  diminish  rather 
than  to  extend  the  breadth  of  the  Isthmus. 

Four  centuries  after  Herodotus,  Strabo,4  writing  of  the  same 
point  said  : “ But  the  Isthmus  between  Pelusium  and  the  head  [of 
the  Arabian  Gulf  ] near  Heroopolis,  is  a thousand  stadia,”  and  he 
quotes  Poseidonios,  a writer  about  half  way  between  Herodotus 
and  Strabo,  as  calling  the  distance  u less  than  fifteen  hundred  ” 
stadia.  A little  later  than  Strabo,  Pliny5  gave  the  length  of  the 

1 Klunzinger’s  Upper  Egypt , p.  335.  2 Hist.,  II.,  158. 

3 A strange  perversion  of  the  testimony  of  Herodotus  has  been  made  by  M.  Hitt, 
through  a miscalculation  of  the  length  of  the  common  classical  stadion  (see  Hist,  de 
VIsthm.  de  Suez , p.  5) ; but  a reference  to  the  text  of  Herodotus  (Hist.,  II.,  149)  will 
show  that  his  measurements  are  in  the  stadion  hexaplethron,  a stadion  of  six  plethra 

(a  plethron  being  one  hundred  and  one  English  feet).  Hitt  quotes  no  ancient  writer 
but  Herodotus,  and  his  measurements  he  misrepresents. 

4 Geog.,  Book  XVII.,  chap.  1,  $ 21. 

5 Hist.  Hat.,  Bk.  V.,  chap.  11. 


THE  WALL  ROAD. 


345 


Isthmus,  “ from  Pelusium  to  Arsinoe,”  the  same  as  it  had  been 
given  by  Herodotus.  Yet  two  centuries  later,  and  Ptolemy 
showed,  by  his  tables  of  latitude  and  longitude  (a  surer  definition 
of  relative  locations  than  distances  along  a traveled  route  would 
be),  that  the  Isthmus  between  the  Mediterranean,  at  Pelusium,  and 
the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  was  then  a little  broader  than  at 
present,  and  a little  narrower  than  in  the  days  of  Herodotus. 
Ptolemy’s  plotting,  as  compared  with  the  actual  positions  of 
to-day,  is  well  shown  by  Kiepert’s  drawing  of  “ Ptolemy’s  Map  of 
the  World,”  in  the  ninth  edition  of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.1 
Again,  the  “ Iter  Antoninum,”  a table  of  distances  along  certain 
routes  in  the  Boman  Empire,  seems  to  confirm,  by  a comparison  of 
its  various  measurements,  the  more  direct  testimony  of  Ptolemy, 
Pliny,  Strabo,  Poseidonios  and  Herodotus,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Isthmus  of  Suez  was  certainly  no  narrower  twenty  centuries  ago, 
than  to-day.  This  view  is  affirmed  by  the  competent  editor  of 
Baedeker’s  Lower  Egypt;2  and  it  would  seem  to  be  also  the 
opinion  of  Professor  Huxley,  in  his  latest  study  of  the  subject.3 

In  short,  whatever  theory  of  the  “ might  have  been  ” is  elabo- 
rated or  defended  by  any  advocate  of  a greatly  narrower  way  than 


1  Conder  ( Handbook , p.  247)  says:  “The  maps  of  Ptolemy  (second  and  third  cen- 
turies of  our  era)  show  the  mouths  [of  the  Nile]  some  forty  geographical  miles  far- 
ther south  than  at  present.”  Yet  one  of  the  latest  careful  students  of  this  subject 
(Huge,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  Art.  “Map  ”)  says:  “No  maps  appear  to  have  been  drawn 
by  Ptolemy  himself;  those  to  be  found  in  the  oldest  editions  of  his  work  are  by  Aga- 
thodsemon  (a  mathematician  of  the  fifth  (?)  century  after  Christ),  though  accurately 
based,  it  is  true,  on  Ptolemy’s  data.”  Yet  Ptolemy  speaks  (Book  I.,  chap.  19-24)  of 
his  method  of  working  on  his  maps.  And  a comparison  of  Ptolemy’s  plotting  with 
the  present  line  of  the  Mediterranean  seems  to  show  that  the  mouths  of  the  Nile 
were  farther  north  in  his  day,  instead  of  farther  south,  than  they  are  to-day.  (Much 
information  on  the  subject  of  the  various  editions,  earlier  and  later,  of  Ptolemy’s 
Geography  is  to  be  found  in  Justin  Winsor’s  “ Bibliography  of  Ptolemy’s  Geogra- 
phy,” in  the  Harvard  University  Bulletins  for  1883/. ) 

2  Handbook,  p.  412  /. 

3  “ Unwritten  History,”  in  Macmillan’s  Mag.  for  May,  1883. 


346 


EADESH-BARNEA. 


that  of  the  present,  between  Africa  and  Asia,  in  the  days  of  the 
Pharaohs,  the  hard  facts  of  geology  and  history  are  at  one  in 
showing  that  no  such  thing  was.1  Hence  we  may  fairly  look  for 
the  lines  of  the  roadways  of  then,  in  the  lines  of  practicable  road- 
ways of  now. 

A suggestion  of  Mr.  Reginald  Stuart  Toole,  in  a recent  study  of 
this  subject,2  is  worthy  of  note  just  here,  as  illustrative  of  a whole 
class  of  errors  in  this  discussion.  Misled  by  his  own  inaccurate 
fixing  of  Heroopolis  on  the  strength  of  an  indefinite  reference  to 
its  site  by  Strabo,3  Poole  is  necessitated  to  reconstruct  the  Isthmus 
to  suit  that  identification.  He  thinks  that  El-Gisr  may  have  been 
lower  than  now, — so  low  as  to  have  been  under  the  Gulf  of  Suez 
level ; that  the  shore  levels  north  and  south  may  have  changed 
meantime ; that  there  may  have  been  “ a gradual  fall  of  the  land, 
at  least  in  the  north  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  and  a corresponding 
rise  in  the  south that  the  Gulf  of  Suez  may  even  “have  ex- 
tended in  historical  times,  so  far  north  as  to  include  Lake  Ballah,” 
without  making  Africa  an  island ; because,  forsooth,  how  otherwise 
could  we  account  for  the  supposed  fact  that  the  only  great  road  out 


1 Kurtz  {Ilist.  of  Old  Cov.,  II.,  312-316)  argues  in  favor  of  the  inclusion  of  the 
Bitter  Lakes  in  the  Red  Sea  within  historic  times.  So  also  do  Sharpe  (Bartlett’s 
Forty  Days , p.  25) ; Hayman  (Smith-Hackett’s  Bib.  Die .,  Art.  “ Wild,  of  the 
Wand.”);  E.  Stanley  Poole  {Ibid.,  Art.  “Red  Sea”);  Canon  Cook  {Speaker’s  Com. 
Append,  to  Exod.) ; Graetz  {Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.,  378  ff.) ; Conder  ( Handbook , 
p.  247  /.);  Burton  {Gold  Mines  of  Mid.,  p.  96  /.) ; Yilliers  Stuart  {Nile  Gleanings , 
pp.  5-7) ; and  others;  but  no  one  of  these  adds  a single  point  to  the  arguments  already 
disposed  of ; while  in  several  instances  the  main  facts  relied  on  are  now  shown  to  be 
bald  errors. 

2 In  his  Cities  of  Egypt,  pp.  112-123. 

3 All  that  Strabo  says  of  the  location  of  Heroopolis,  can  be  reconciled  with  a con- 
nection of  that  city  and  the  gulf  by  a canal— the  “Trajan  River,”  as  Ptolemy  {Geog., 
Bk.  IV.,  chap.  5,  § 54)  calls  it.  Ptolemy  (Comp.  § 13  and  § 54  as  above)  shows  that 
Heroopolis  is  some  twelve  or  fourteen  miles  farther  north  than  the  head  of  the  gulf. 
Poole’s  conclusion,  that  “ the  gulf  extended  over  forty  miles  northward  of  its  present 
head  at  Suez,”  of  course  falls  with  the  disclosure  of  his  error  in  locating  Hero- 
opolis. 


THE  WALL  ROAD. 


347 


of  Egypt  toward  Syria  passed  north  of  the  present  Lake  Ballah? 
“ Obviously,”  he  says,  “ the  Pharaohs  would  have  chosen  the  best 
line  of  march,  north  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  so  between  the  two  seas  ; ” 
and  since,  as  the  face  of  the  country  now  exists,  the  plateau  of  El- 
Gisr  would  proffer  such  a line,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  that 
plateau  was  then  under  water,  even  if  the  Isthmus  must  be  tipped 
up  to  keep  it  there.  This  is  certainly  an  ingenious  way  of  meeting 
the  difficulties  which  must  present  themselves  to  any  thoughtful 
student  of  the  facts  involved,  who  lacks  a knowledge  of  the  great 
central  road  out  of  Egypt  over  El-Gisr,  south  of  Lake  Ballah,  in 
the  days  of  the  Pharaohs ; the  “ Way  of  Shur,”  or  the  Wall  Road 
of  Egypt. 

As  over  against  this  suggestion  of  Poole’s,  a writer  in  the  Edin- 
burgh Review,1  not  long  ago,  made  an  ingenious  and  plausible 
argument  to  show  that  in  the  days  of  the  exodus  this  midland 
road  over  El-Gisr,  or  rather  over  the  height  next  south  of  it,  this 
“ Way  of  Shur  ” must  have  been  the  only  practicable  highway  out 
of  Egypt  eastward.  His  claim  was,  that  the  region  of  Qantarah, 
the  pass  of  the  “ Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,”  including 
all  “ the  space  now  covered  by  Lakes  Menzaleh,  Ballah,  and 
Timsali,  and  the  intervening  and  neighboring  marshy  and  sandy 
districts,  must  at  that  time  either  have  been  far  below  the  level  of 
the  Mediterranean,  or  have  been  covered  by  lagoon  and  marsh, 
accessible  to  the  waters  of  that  sea,  when  driven  by  a westerly 
wind.”  His  argument  was  based  upon  the  data  of  other  changes 
along  the  Mediterranean  shore ; and  it  was  so  neatly  done  as  to 
half  tempt  a regret  that  it  could  not  be  true.  But  the  real  barrier 
to  its  acceptance  was,  that  its  conclusions  were  utterly  at  variance 
with  the  facts  of  the  case  as  shown  by  the  Egyptian  monuments, 
the  Hebrew  records,  and  the  classical  geographers  and  historians. 
And  the  same  may  be  said  of  any  theory  which  would  fail  to  leave 


1 For  Jan.,  1877,  Art.  “ Mediterranean  Deltas.” 


348 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


dry  ground  for  both  the  “ Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines” 
and  the  “ Way  of  Shur”  in  the  days  of  the  Pharaohs,  and  in  all 
the  days  which  have  intervened  since  then. 

It  has  been  claimed  by  many  writers  that  a prophecy  of  Isaiah 
(11  : 15)  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  shortening  of  the  Gulf  of 
Suez ; and  an  appeal  to  this  prophecy  (“  The  Lord  shall  utterly 
destroy  the  tongue  of  the  Egyptian  Sea”)  has  been  frequently 
made  in  support  of  some  hypothesis  of  a much  narrower  isthmus 
in  the  days  of  the  exodus.  But  what  reason  is  there  for  supposing 
the  “ Egyptian  Sea”  to  have  been  the  “ Yam  Sooph,”  or  the  Gulf  of 
Suez  ? 1 That  gulf  is  never  called  the  “ Egyptian  Sea  ” elsewhere 
than  in  this  passage ; and  here  the  prophetic  reference  would  seem 
to  be  to  the  Nile  rather  than  to  the  Gulf.  The  Nile  is  several 
times  called  the  “ sea,”  including  at  least  two  instances  in  Isaiah 
(18:2;  19  : 5) ; and  it  is  so  known  among  the  Arabs  at  the  pres- 
ent time.2  The  Pelusiac  arm  of  the  Nile,  which  was  the  great 
tongue  of  that  Egyptian  Sea  eastward  ; which  both  bounded  and 
gave  life  to  that  portion  of  primitive  Lower  Egypt;3  into  which 
the  Great  Canal  entered ; along  which  were  the  chief  cities  and 
inner  fortresses  of  the  eastern  border,  from  Pelusium  (the  “ Key  of 
Egypt  ”)  to  Heliopolis ; and  which  was,  in  fact,  worshiped  as  one  of 
the  legs  of  the  great  god  Osiris  ; — this  tongue  of  the  Egyptian  Sea 
has  been  so  “ utterly  destroyed,”  and  blotted  from  existence,  that 
Egyptian  explorers  are  unable  to  track  its  ancient  course,  or  to  de- 
fine the  line  of  its  former  channel  and  banks.4  Surely  there  is  here 
an  ample  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  without  any  call  to 
pervert  the  teachings  of  the  other  Scriptures,  the  records  of  outside 
history,  and  the  indications  of  geology,  in  order  to  meet  the  condi- 

1 The  western  arm  of  the  Ked  Sea,  by  whatever  name  it  was  known. 

2 See  Gesenius’s  Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  Yam  (D’)  1.  a.  In  Ancient  Egyptian,  also,  the 
correspondent  word  “ im,”  signified  both  “ the  sea  ” and  “ the  Nile  ” ; as,  again  did 
the  word,  “ uat  ur  ” (water  ?).  See  McCauley’s  Diet,  of  Egypt.  Hieroglyph.,  pp.  66, 206. 

3 Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  228/.  4 Ibid.,  I.,  236/. 


THE  WALL  ROAD. 


349 


tions  of  a hypothetical  exegesis,  and  a hypothetical  re-construction 
of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez.  There  is  even  reason  for  thinking  that 
the  triple  parallelism  of  this  portion  of  Isaiah’s  prophecy  has  ex- 
clusive reference  to  the  river  Nile ; although  the  commentators 
generally  would  find  in  “ the  river  ” a reference  to  the  Euphrates, 
and  would  understand  that  that  river  is  to  be  smitten  into  “ seven 
streams.”  Certainly  a more  natural  meaning  would  seem  to  be 
found  in  a reference  to  the  Nile  in  each  of  the  three  clauses  of  the 
verse  ; 

“ And  the  Lord  shall  utterly  destroy  the  tongue  of  the  Egyptian  sea , 

And  with  his  mighty  wind  shall  he  shake  his  hand  over  the  river , 

And  shall  smite  it  in  the  seven  streams , 

And  make  men  go  over  dry  shod.” 

“ The  river”  clearly  applies  to  the  Nile  in  Isaiah  19:5,  and  there, 
also,  in  a parallelism  with  the  Nile  as  “ the  sea.”  And  the  Nile 
has  been  smitten  in  that  portion  of  it  which  was  known  as  “the 
seven  streams ; ” five  of  those  seven  streams  being  now  closed 
from  sight. 

Distinct  traces  of  this  Wall  Hoad,  midway  of  the  Isthmus,  have 
been  discovered  but  recently ; and  even  yet  their  discovery  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  applied  to  the  question  here  considered,  by 
students  of  this  region.  In  1878,  the  Rev.  F.  W.  Holland  made 
his  fifth  visit  to  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  “ in  the  hope  of  throwing 
some  light  upon  the  disputed  question  of  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea,  and  the  boundary  of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Edom.” 
When  on  the  edge  of  the  Negeb,  the  “ South  Country  ” of  Scrip- 
ture, he  was  turned  aside  from  his  search  of  Kadesh-barnea,  by 
learning  of  an  ancient  road  sweeping  across  the  desert  toward  the 
modern  station  Isma’ileeya.  This  road,  which  is  a continuation  of 
the  caravan  route  from  Hebron  and  Beersheba,  desertward,  passes 
to  the  north  of  Jebel  Yeleq  (which  mountain,  Holland  says,  “ has 
been  placed  too  far  to  the  north,”  on  the  maps,  hitherto) ; it 


350 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


“ crosses  Jebel  Mugharah,1  an  important  range,  where  there  are 
wells2  and  ancient  ruins;  and  then  turning  due  west,  runs  over  a 
rolling  plateau,  in  places  much  covered  with  sand  drifts,  to 
Ismail ia.”  “ Large  numbers  of  flint  flakes  and  arrow  heads 
prove,”  says  Holland,  “ that  this  road  was  much  used  in  ancient 
times ; and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  the  road  followed 
by  Abraham  from  the  Negeb,  or  South  Country,  to  Egypt.”  A 
brief  report  of  this  discovery  was  made  by  Holland  to  the  British 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science ; 3 but  his  death  pre- 
vented his  pursuit  of  this  clue  and  its  linkings.  In  reporting  it, 
however,  he  said  with  enthusiasm  : “ The  discovery  of  this  road 

is  regarded  as  one  of  great  importance ; and,  as  far  as  the  author 
can  learn,  it  has  been  previously  unknown.”4  It  certainly  fur- 

1 This  mountain  range  is  laid  down  on  none  of  the  maps  (except  that  of  Egypt, 
in  Stanford's  London  Atlas , 1882),  so  far  as  I know,  although  a station  marked 
“ Magar”  is  noted  in  its  region,  in  the  Atlas  of  the  Description  de  VEgypte,  and  on  a 
few  later  maps.  Nor  is  this  omission  to  be  wondered  at;  for  the  mountain  range  is 
no  longer  on  the  ordinary  route  of  desert  travel,  now  that  the  “Way  of  Shur”  is 
discontinued  as  a main  road ; and  it  is  in  a district  left  out  of  all  the  modern  thorough 
surveys.  It  is  however  occasionally  referred  to  as  seen  in  the  distance  by  travelers 
between  Suez  and  Gaza.  A good  description  of  it,  with  accompanying  illustra- 
tions is  given  in  the  Archduke  Ludwig’s  Caravan  Route  between  Egypt  and  Syria 
(See  also  Stewart’s  Tent  and  Khan,  pp.  202,  215).  Professor  Palmer  makes  several 
references  to  Magharah,  in  his  now  famous  ride  from  Gaza  to  Suez  (See  Besant’s 
Life  of  Palmer,  p.  269),  and  his  biographer  being  unable  to  find  the  site  on  the  maps 
falls  into  the  natural  mistake  (p.  274)  of  supposing  that  this  “ Magharah  ” is  the 
“ Jebel  Makrah,”  many  miles  eastward. 

2 Is  “the  fountain  in  the  Way  of  Shur”— the  watering  place  between  Beersheba 
and  the  Wall  on  that  Wall  Road— yet  to  be  recognized  at  this  point. 

3 See  Report  of  the  British  Assoc,  for  1878,  p.  622  ff. 

4 It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Laborde  laid  down  this  road  on  a route  map  in  his  great 
work  ( Voyage  de  I' Arab.  PH.),  just  as  Holland  describes  it,  and  entitled  it  the  “ route 
of  the  caravans  of  the  Midianites  and  Idumeans  from  Syria  to  Egypt.”  It  seems 
to  be  indicated  in  Kiepert’s  map  whieh  accompanied  Robinson’s  Biblical  Researches . 
Lepsius,  also,  ( Den/cm .,  Abth.  I.,  Bl.  3)  notes  the  remains  of  an  ancient  road  ( alte 
Strasse ) between  Lake  Ballah  and  Lake  Tirnsah,  where  El-Gisr  furnishes  the  thresh- 
old. 


THE  WALL  ROAD . 


351 


nishes  a positive  confirmation  of  the  existence  of  the  central  Road 
of  the  Wall,  referred  to  in  the  Bible,  and  indicated  by  the  whole 
contour  of  the  country  in  the  region  of  the  “ Wall  that  is  before 
Egypt  as  thou  goest  toward  Assyria.”1 

There  is  even  reason  for  supposing  that  the  return  of  Setee  I. 
from  his  campaign  against  the  Shasoo  and  other  enemies,  as  shown 
in  the  famous  bas-relief  at  Karnak,  was  by  the  “ Way  of  Shur,” 
rather  than  by  the  “ Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines.”  Even 
if  he  went  out  through  the  Wall  by  the  northerly  road  (as  is  by  no 
means  sure),  he  had  certainly  swept  onward  in  a northeasterly 
direction  to  Galilee,  and  beyond,  and  it  would  seem  natural  for 
him  to  return  by  a director  course  from  his  victory  at  “ Kana’an,” 
than  the  Gaza  seaside-route  could  offer  to  him. 

One  point  is  sure : near  the  place  of  his  passing  the  Great  Wall, 
and  crossing  the  Great  Canal,  as  there  represented,  was  a “ Well 
of  the  Tower,”  or  a “ Tower  of  the  Well ; ” a Migdol  and  a Well 
in  conjunction.  To  this  day  there  exists  a “Bir  Makdal,”2  a 
“ Well  of  the  Tower,”  on  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,  a short  dis- 
tance from  El-Gisr,  northeasterly,  in  the  very  line  of  that  central 
roadway  between  Egypt  and  Syria — the  Way  of  Shur.  If  Setee  I. 
did  not  return  to  Egypt  by  that  roadway,  this  “Well  of  the 
Tower”  at  the  main  entrance  which  he  might  have  entered  is  a 
very  remarkable  coincidence.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  that  was  the 
road  of  his  return,  this  “ Well  of  the  Tower”  has  retained  its 
name,  by  tradition,  in  all  the  intervening  ages,  in  accordance  with 
the  customs  of  the  unchangeable  East.  There  is  certainly  no  Well 
of  the  Tower  suggested  as  an  identification  of  this  landmark  of 
Setee’s  approach  to  Egypt,  or  any  other  road  than  this  Way  of 
Shur. 

1 Gen.  25:  18. 

2 See  “ Carte  Topographique,”  in  Description  de  VEgypte  (Arabic,  J 
French,  Bir  Makdal ) ; also  “ Karte  yon  vEgypten,”  in  Lepsius’s  Denkmaler,  Abth. 
I.,  Bl.  2 (German,  Muktal) ; also  any  complete  modern  map  of  that  region. 


352 


KA  DESII-BA  RNEA . 


6.  THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD. 

“The  Way  of  the  Red  Sea,”  or  “ The  Way  of  the  Wilderness 
of  the  Red  Sea,”  was  the  road  which  swept  out  of  Egypt,  across 
the  wilderness  between  the  two  arms  of  the  Red  Sea,  from  the 
head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  to  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah. 
It  is  to-day  the  great  Hajj  route  from  Egypt  toward  Mekkeh.  It 
first  finds  mention  in  the  Bible  as  the  road  toward  which  the 
Israelites  were  turned,  from  their  encampment  near  the  exit  of  the 
Philistia  Road  through  the  Great  Wall  of  the  frontier,  at  the  time 
of  the  exodus.  “ God  led  them  not  the  Way  of  the  Land  of  the 
Philistines;  although  that  was  near  [p^'Qqarobhf  close  at  hand’]; 

. . . but  God  led  the  people  about  [or,  better,  ‘ turned  the  people 
to’]  the  Way  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea.”1  After  this 
mention,  this  road  is  frequently  referred  to  in  the  narrative  of  the 
exodus  and  wanderings. 

When  this  southernmost  road  is  spoken  of,  in  the  Bible,  from 
the  Egypt  side  of  the  Wall,  it  is  called  the  “ Way  of  the  Wilder- 
ness of  the  Red  Sea;”2  but  when  it  is  mentioned  from  the  wilder- 
ness side  it  is  called  the  “Way  of  the  Red  Sea”3  simply.  The 
reason  for  this  distinction  is  obvious. 

As  a question  has  been  raised  concerning  the  identity  of  the 
modern  “ Red  Sea  ” with  the  term  so  translated  in  our  English 
Bible,  and  in  the  Septuagint,  it  may  be  well  to  meet  that  question 
at  this  point. 

The  Hebrew  term  is  Yam  Sooph .4  The  word  Yam  means  “sea,”  or 
“ lake.”  The  word  Sooph  means  “ weeds,”  or  “ sedge,”  or  “ rushes,” 
or  “ flags.”  Yam  Sooph,  therefore,  might  fairly  mean  “ Sea  of 
Weeds,”  or  “ Sea  of  Sedge,”  or  “ Lake  of  Rushes,”  or  “ Lake  of 
Flags.”  Brugsch  says  emphatically,5  that  “ suph  is  a plant  which 

1 Exod.  13 : 17,  18.  2 Exod.  13  : 18. 

3 Num.  14:  25;  21:  4;  Deut.  1 : 40;  2:  1. 

i See  Gesenius  and  Furst,  s.  v.  5 Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  430. 


THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD. 


353 


grows  in  lakes,  but  not  in  the  sea.”  And  Philip  Smith  adds,1  that 
“ the  leading  passage  to  determine  the  original  meaning  of  the 
word  is  Exodus  2 : 3,  where  the  ark2  of  the  infant  Moses  is  made 
of  sriph”  But  before  these  asseverations  could  be  accepted  as  con- 
clusive, it  would  be  necessary  to  show  how  it  was,  then,  that  Jonah 
found  a fresh-water  turban  in  the  depths  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea ; for  it  was  when  he  had  been  thrown  overboard  on  his  way 
from  Joppa  to  Tarshish,  that  he  said  :3 4  “ The  sooph  was  wrapped 
about  my  head.”  In  other  words,  since  it  is  clear  that  the  Hebrew 
word  sooph  is  in  one  instance  applied  to  the  vegetation  of  the  sea, 
and  in  another  instance  to  the  vegetation  of  the  river,  it  is  proper 
to  look  for  some  equivalent  term,  like  u weeds,”  or  “ sedge,”  that 
shall  be  applicable  alike  to  the  vegetation  of  river  and  of  sea. 

The  Egyptian  word  sufi,  or  thufi  * which  Brugsch  counts  the 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  sooph , is  applied,  according  to  his  testi- 
mony, to  the  aquatic  vegetation  of  Lake  Menzaleh  and  vicinity ; 
although  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  seem  to  be  specifically  applied, 
in  the  Bible,  to  the  vegetation  of  a lake , as  it  is  applied  to  that  of 

1  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  430,  note. 

2  This  is  an  inadvertent  error.  The  ark  is  made  of  gomt;  but  it  is  laid  in  the 
sooph.  The  same  error  is  made  by  Greville  Chester  in  his  article  in  “Special 
Papers  ” (p.  107)  of  Surv.  of  West.  Pal. 

3  Jonah  2 : 5. 

4  “ The  marshes  and  lakes  rich  in  water  plants,  which  at  this  day  are  denoted  by 
the  name  of  the  Birket  Menzaleh,  shared  the  name  common  to  all  such  waters,  sufi 
(or,  with  the  Egyptian  article, pa-sufi,  equivalent  to  ‘the  sufi’),  a word  which  com- 
pletely agrees  with  the  Hebrew  Suf  [Sooph] . The  interpreters  generally  understand 
this  word  in  the  sense  of  rushes  or  a rushy  district,  while  in  old  Egyptian  it  denotes 
precisely  a water  rich  in  papyrus  plants.”  (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  232.)  In  the 
Appendix  to  his  Geographical  Dictionary  (pp.  890-902,  s.  v.  Thufi),  Brugsch  labors 
to  show  that  this  word  was  limited  to  fresh  water  lilies  and  rushes ; but  he  simply 
multiplies  evidence  in  proof  of  the  admitted  fact  that  the  word  was  sometimes  so 
applied.  And  he  shows  the  essential  insufficiency  of  his  argument,  when  he  admits 
that  the  word  is  of  Semitic  origin;  so  that  Jonah  is  quite  as  likely  as  an  Egyptian 
scribe,  or  any  other  dweller  in  Egypt,  to  have  been  informed  of  its  possible 
meanings. 

23 


354 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


the  river  and  of  the  Great  Sea.  Yet  in  both  his  Lexicon1 *  and  his 
Geographical  Dictionary/  Brugsch  admits  that  the  Egyptian  word 
is  applicable  also  to  sea- weed  ( alga  marina). 

That  the  shores  and  the  bottom  of  the  Red  Sea  are  such  as 
readily  to  account  for  the  application  to  that  sea  of  some  name  in- 
dicative of  the  peculiar  growths  which  border  and  underlie  it,  is  a 
fact  made  clear  by  the  testimony  of  impartial  and  intelligent  ob- 
servers of  all  ages.  Strabo,  speaking  of  the  Red  Sea,  says : 3 “ Even 
trees  ( divdga , ‘ dendra’)  here  grow  from  under  the  water.”  Bruce4 
says  of  the  tree-like  coral  growths  of  that  sea  (although  he  was 
unfamiliar  with  the  other  marine  growths  reported  by  later  scien- 
tists) : “ My  opinion  is,  that  it  is  from  the  large  trees  or  plants  of 
white  coral,  spread  everywhere  over  the  bottom  of  the  Red  Sea, 
perfectly  in  imitation  of  plants  on  land,  that  the  sea  has  obtained 
this  name  ” of  Yam  Sooph.  And  he  adds  : “ I saw  one  of  these 
[trees]  which  from  a root  nearly  central,  threw  put  ramifications  in 
a nearly  circular  form,  measuring  twenty-six  feet  diameter  every 
way.”  Fazakerley5  told  of  the  prominence  given  to  this  idea  by 
the  Arabs  of  Toor.  “ They  proposed  to  us,”  he  said,  “ to  go  with 
them  in  their  boats,  and  promised  to  show  us  what  they  called 
trees  growing  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.”  He  accepted  their  pro- 
posal. u There  was  not  a breath  of  wind  ; the  water  was  as  clear 
as  crystal ; and  when  we  had  moved  out  to  some  little  distance 
from  the  shore,  we  saw  clearly  what  they  meant  by  trees : large 
clusters  of  coral,  and  madrepores  of  different  forms  and  colors,  and 
some  of  great  size,  looking  like  shrubs  growing  out  of  the  sand.”6 
Laborde,  again,  presented  a strong  array  of  testimony  on  this 
point,7  as  showing  the  impropriety  of  limiting  the  sooph  to  fresh- 
water vegetation.  Besides  citing  earlier  writers,  like  Rosenmuller, 

lHier.  Demot.  Worterb.,  p.  1580.  2 Diet.  Geog.,  p.  890  /. 

3 Geog.,  XVI.,  4,  7.  4 Travels  (1768-1773),  I.,  247. 

6 See  his  “ Journey  ” (in  1811),  in  Walpole’s  Travels  in  East.  6 Ibid.,  p.  381. 

7 Voyage  de  V Arab ie  Petr&e,  p.  5. 


THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD. 


355 


Buxtorf,  Shaw,  and  Lipenius,  he  quoted  the  testimony  of  Lord 
Valentia  and  Giovanni  Finati  to  the  effect  that  “ weeds  and  corals” 
are  to  be  seen  in  such  profusion  and  beauty  at  many  places  along 
the  shores  of  the  Bed  Sea,  and  again  below  its  surface,  as  dis- 
closed at  low  water,  “ as  almost  to  have  the  appearance  of  groves 
and  gardens.”  1 

Even  if  it  were  shown  that  sooph  wTas  a term  applied  only  to 
the  reeds  of  Egypt,  there  would  still  be  reason  for  thinking  that 
it  designated  a growth  along  the  shores  of  the  Bed  Sea.  Thus 
Stickel2 3  cites  Fresnel  in  proof  that  sooph  signifies  “ the  wToolly 
bush  of  the  ripe  reed,”  “ the  juncus  acutus,  arundo  AEgyptiaca , and 
arundo  Isaica , which  grows  commonly  on  the  shore  of  the  Bed 
Sea  ; and  that  it  is  a translation  of  the  old  Pharaonic  Shari , in  the 
Egyptian  name  of  the  same  sea,  Phi-yom-en-Shari,  the  Sea  of  the 
Beed  (weed) ; just  as  at  this  day  a bay  of  the  same  [sea]  is  called 
Ghubbet-el-btis,  ‘ Beed  Bay/  ” 

More  recently,  the  observing  naturalist  Klunzinger  has  brought 
out  added  facts  of  importance  bearing  on  this  question,  as  a result 
of  his  long  residence  and  careful  studies  on  the  Bed  Sea  coast. 
He  says  that  where  the  soil  of  the  desert  along  that  coast  is  kept 
moist  by  “ lagoons  of  sea  water,  the  eye  is  gladdened  by  spreading 
meadows  of  green  rushes.”5  “The  coast  flora  of  the  desert  which 
requires  the  saline  vapor  of  the  sea  is  peculiar.  A celebrated 
plant  is  the  shora4  (Avicennia  officinalis ),  which  forms  large  dense 
groves  in  the  sea,  these  being  laid  bare  only  at  very  low  ebb. 
Ships  are  laden  with  its  wood,  which  is  used  as  fuel,  and  many 

1 Burton  ( Gold  Mines  of  Mid.,  p.  315  /.)  tells  of  “the  lovely  coral-fields  of  the 
Northern  Bed  Sea,”  as  they  are  “ described  and  figured  in  color  and  perspective  by 
Eugene  Baron  Bansounet.” 

2 “ Der  Israeliten  Auszug  aus  ^Egypten,  etc.”  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  for  1850,  p.  331. 

3 Upper  Egypt,  p.  238  f. 

4 Is  not  this  shora  the  same  as  “ the  old  Pharaonic  shari  in  the  Egyptian  name  of 

the  same  sea,”  as  referred  to  by  Fresnel  and  Stickel  ? 


356 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


camels  live  altogether  upon  its  laurel-like  leaves.” 1 He  divides, 
indeed,  the  shore  line  of  the  Red  Sea  into  the  "outer  shore  zone,” 
or  the  reef-line,  and  the  " inner  shore  or  sea-grass  zone.”  Even 
in  the  outer  shore  zone  there  "flourish  also  in  many  inlets  of  the 
sea  thickets  of  the  laurel-like  shora  shrub ” as  above  described; 
and  there  are  " sea-grass  pools.”  In  the  inner  shore  zone  " among 
the  rocks,  which  are  either  bare  or  covered  with  a blackish  and 
red  mucilaginous  sea-weed,”  there  "grow  green  phanerogamous 
grasses  of  the  family  of  the  Naiadese.”2 

This  peculiarity  of  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea  has  attracted  the 
attention  of  more  than  one  traveler  along  its  coast.  While  I was 
on  my  way  from  Suez  to  Mount  Sinai,  as  our  party  halted  for  its 
mid-day  lunch  at  a point  between  ’Ayoon  Moosa  and  Wady  Wer- 
dan,  my  two  companions  were  tempted  by  a sight  of  the  cool  sea 
at  the  westward,  to  walk  down  to  its  refreshing  shores.  They 
found  the  distance  tediously  deceptive.  It  seemed  indeed  as  if  the 
shore  receded  before  them.  And  when  at  last  they  reached  the  sea, 
it  was  not  there.  Instead  of  the  clean  sandy  shore  that  they  had 
looked  for,  there  stretched  before  them  a wide  expanse  of  marine 
vegetation  between  the  dry  land  and  the  blue  waters  beyond. 
Skirting  this  unexpected  barrier  of  peculiar  sea-growth,  they  espied 
a sandy  peninsula  above  the  water  level,  and  going  out  on  to  that 
they  looked  back  over  this  shore  meadow  or  heather,  which  had 
been  laid  bare  by  the  low  tide,  and  if  they  had  then  been  called  to 
give  a name  to  the  sea  before  them  they  would  have  been  quite 
likely  to  designate  it  as  the  " Sea  of  Sedge,”  the  “ Sea  of  Shora,” 
the  Yam  Sooph , the  " Yom-en- Shari,”  or  by  some  such  title  ex- 
pressive of  its  characteristic  shores,  unless  indeed  my  companions 
had  had  some  preconceived  theory  of  the  exodus,  to  prejudice 
them  against  an  appropriate  designation. 

It  is  evident  that  there  are  sound  reasons  for  supposing  that  the 


1 Upper  Egypt , p.  240. 


8 Ibid.,  pp.  342-349. 


THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD . 


357 


Hebrew  term  sooph  was  applied  to  the  vegetation  of  the  sea  as  well 
as  to  the  border  rashes  of  the  river.  It  is  equally  certain  that 
the  “ spreading  meadows  of  green  rushes,”  and  the  “ green  phane- 
rogamous grasses”  which  mark  the  “ sea-grass  zone”  of  the  desert- 
bordered  Red  Sea,  together  with  the  “ large  dense  groves,”  and 
“ thickets  ” of  “ the  laurel-like  shora  shrub,”  which  at  low  tide  are 
there  laid  bare  in  such  size  and  profusion  as  to  furnish  food  for  the 
camels,  fuel  for  the  ships,  and  confusion  and  bewilderment  to  the 
shore-seeking  traveler  (all  these  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
Mediterranean,  or  the  Atlantic,  shores),  would  abundantly  justify, 
to-day,  the  designation  of  Yam  Sooph , the  Sea  of  Weeds,  for  the 
Red  Sea.  Yet,  after  all,  it  is  more  important,  as  a geographical 
question,  to  know  what  body  of  water  was  known  as  Yam  Sooph, 
than  to  know  what  waters  might  have  been,  or  even  what  waters 
ought  to  have  been,  so  known.  And  as  to  this  point  the  historical 
evidence  seems  complete. 

The  Yam  Sooph  is  first  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  plague 
of  locusts  (Exod.  10  : 19) : “ And  the  Lord  turned  a mighty  strong 
west  wind  [literally,  a “ sea  wind,”  a “ wind  from  the  Mediterra- 
nean”] which  took  away  the  locusts  and  cast  them  into  the  Yam 
Sooph ; there  remained  not  one  locust  in  ail  the  coasts  of  Egypt.” 
Now  if  that  wind  blew  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  would  have 
required  a “ boomerang  ” current  quite  unknown  in  the  realm  of 
meteorology,  to  have  swept  all  the  locusts  of  Lower  Egypt  either 
into  Lake  Serbonis,  or  Lake  Menzaleh,  on  the  southern  border  of 
the  Mediterranean,  or  into  any  other  of  the  lakes  which  have  been 
named  as  philologically  indicated  in  the  Yam  Sooph.1  And  the 
same  would  be  true  if  the  wind  were  one  directly  from  the  west, 
instead  of  a wind  from  the  sea.  But  if  a good  strong  wind  either 

1 “ Yam  Souph,  1 the  Sea  of  Reeds , . . . was  applied  as  a general  term  to  denote  all 
the  marshes  and  lagoons  of  Lower  Egypt,  which  are  characterized  by  their  rich  veg- 
etation, consisting  of  papyrus  and  of  rushes.”  (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , II., 
376.) 


358 


KA  DESII-  BA  RNEA . 


from  the  west  or  from  the  northwest  were  blowing  across  Lower 
Egypt,  the  locusts  would  have  had  to  find  a watery  grave  in  the 
western  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  in  spite  of  all  their  protests  against 
the  philological  impropriety  of  the  performance. 

The  next  mention  of  Yam  Sooph  is  in  the  narrative  of  the 
exodus,1  where  it  is  said  that  God  led  not  the  people  out  of  Egypt 
by  the  Philistia  Road,  although  that  was  just  at  hand,  but  he 
turned  the  people  to  “ the  Way  [or,  the  Road]  of  the  Wilderness 
of  the  Yam  Sooph;”  and  again  that  Moses,  having  crossed  the 
miraculously-bared  bed  of  the  waters,  “ brought  Israel  from  the 
Yam  Sooph  ; and  they  went  out  into  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wall.”2 
Yet  again  the  Yam  Sooph  was  touched  by  them  several  stations 
later.3  This  “ Wilderness  of  the  Yam  Sooph  ” would  seem  to  be  a 
general  name  for  the  entire  wilderness  between  the  two  arms  of  the 
Red  Sea.  This  view  of  it  is  sustained  by  every  direct  or  inciden- 
tal reference  to  it  in  the  Old  Testament.4  But  as  if  to  put  at  rest 
all  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the  Yam  Sooph  with  the  Red  Sea, 
the  former  term  is  clearly  applied,  in  several  instances,  to  the 
eastern  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  or  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah.  Thus,  for 
example,  God’s  promise  to  Israel  is  : “ And  I will  set  thy  bounds 
from  the  Yam  Sooph  even  unto  the  Sea  of  the  Philistines,  and  from 
the  desert  unto  the  river ; ” 5 in  other  words,  the  boundary  stretch 
on  the  south  shall  be  from  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean, and  its  reach  north  and  south  shall  be  from  the  Arabian 
Desert  to  the  Euphrates  ; and  this  promise  was  literally  fulfilled  in 
the  days  of  David  and  Solomon.6  To  imagine  this  promised 
southern  boundary  as  being  from  Lake  Serbonis  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean, is  to  bring  out  the  essential  absurdity  of  the  claim  that 

1  Exod.  13 : 18. 

2 Exod.  15 : 22.  3 Num.  33 : 10. 

* Comp.  Exod.  13 : 18 ; 14 : 2 ; Num.  14 : 25-33 ; 33 : 6-8 ; Deut.  1 : 40 ; 2 : 1 ; 
Jadg.  11 : 16,  etc. 

3 Exod.  23  : 31. 


6 See  Speaker’s  Com.  at  Exod.  23 : 31. 


TEE  YAM  SO  OPE  ROAD. 


359 


Yam  Sooph  refers  to  that  lake  ; or,  indeed,  to  any  lake  near  the 
border  of  the  Mediterranean. 

Again,  Yam  Sooph  evidently  refers  to  the  eastern  arm  of  the 
Red  Sea,  when  Jephthah  tells  the  king  of  the  Amorites  of  the 
Israelites’  course  from  Egypt  through  the  wilderness,  until  at  the 
close  of  their  wanderings  they  came  to  Ezion-gaber  on  their  way  to 
their  final  assembling  at  Kadesh.  “ Israel  came  up  from  Egypt,” 
he  says,  and  u walked  through  the  wilderness  unto  the  Yam  Sooph, 
and  came  to  Kadesh;”1  or  as  the  record  in  Numbers  stands: 
“ They  . . . encamped  at  Ezion-gaber  [at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of 
’Aqabah].  And  they  removed  from  Ezion-gaber,  and  pitched  in 
. . . . Kadesh.”2  And  yet  again  it  was  “ on  the  lip  of  the  Yam 
Sooph,  in  the  land  of  Edom,”  that  “ king  Solomon  made  a navy 
of  ships”3 — to  traverse  seas  very  different  from  the  oozing  waters 
of  the  Serbonian  Bog  and  its  appurtenances. 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  evidences  that  Yam  Sooph  is  a 
term  which  the  ancient  Hebrews  applied  to  the  Red  Sea.  Indeed 
the  proofs  are  so  numerous  in  the  accepted  text  of  our  Hebrew 
Bible,  that  some  of  the  fresli-water  theorists  have  urged  that  the 
Hebrew  scholars  who,  while  themselves  resident  in  Egypt,  two 
thousand  years  ago,  made  the  Septuagint  version,  and  other 
scholars  before  and  after  them,  must  have  been  misled  by  popular 
errors  as  to  the  geography  of  that  region,  and  so  were  induced  to 
give  an  unauthorized  gloss  to  the  text,  where  the  term  Yam  Sooph 
is  employed.4  But,  apart  from  all  disputed  readings  and  am- 

1 Judg.  11 : 16.  See  page  146  f.,  supra.  2 Num.  33 : 35,  36,  3 1 Kings  9 : 26. 

4 See  Schleiden  (in  his  Die  Landenge  von  Suds,  pp.  177-199),  as  referred  to,  approv- 
ingly, by  Brugsch  (in  his  Eist.  of  Egypt,  II.,  430) ; the  author  of  “ Mediterranean 

Deltas,”  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  Jan.,  1877;  Chester,  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal., 

“Special  Papers,”  p.  87;  and  others.  Bartlett  ( Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  170)  by  a single 
sentence,  pricks  the  bubble  of  Schleiden  concerning  the  “gloss”  by  which  Yam 
Sooph  crept  into  the  text : “ Schleiden  first  alleged  that  this  statement  was  in  the 
Jehovistic,  and  not  in  the  Elohistic,  portion  of  Genesis,  and  might  therefore  be  set 
aside.  But  if  the  importance  of  such  a distinction  be  recognized,  Exodus  13  : 18,  in 


360 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


biguous  references,  the  evidence  is  ample  that  the  Yam  Sooph  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  was  the  Red  Sea  of  modern  geography; 
and  in  fact  the  ordinary  method  of  making  a fair  show  on  the 
other  side  has  been  by  ignoring1  such  of  the  passages  quoted 
above  as  would  in  themselves  be  sufficient  to  put  the  matter  finally 
at  rest,  or  by  denying  the  correctness  of  every  historical  verity 
which  stands  in  the  way  of  a particular  theory  concerning  the 
interpretation  of  the  only  extant  record  on  the  subject  of  inquiry.2 

This  “ Way  of  the  Red  Sea/7  or  this  Red  Sea  Road,  which 
swept  across  the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea,  from  the  head  of  the 
Gulf  of  Suez  to  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  ’Aqabah,  was  probably 
the  road  taken  by  Kedor-la’omer  when  he  turned  into  the  wilder- 
ness at  the  lower  end  of  Mount  Seir,  and  which  he  pursued  until 
he  reached  El-Paran,  or  En-Nakhl,  the  mid-desert  oasis,  where  he 
made  his  turn  northward  toward  Kadesh-barnea.3  It  is  also  the 
road  toward  which  the  rebellious  Israelites  were  turned  back  from 
Kadesh-barnea  when  they  were  sentenced  to  a life  of  wandering. 
“ To-morrow,  turn  you  and  get  you  into  the  wilderness  by  the  Way 
of  the  Red  Sea,” 4 was  the  direction.  They  were  not  to  go  to  the 
Red  Sea,  but  to  take  the  well-known  Red  Sea  Road  into  the  wil- 


which  the  statement  occurs,  is  Elohistic Again,  on  Exodus  14 : 1,  Schleiden  coolly 
remarks  (note  at  p.  180) : “The  name  Jehovah  is  here  and  in  the  following  verses 
obviously  a later  interpolation.”  It  is  easy  to  prove  one’s  pet  theory,  from  the 
Bible  text,  if  the  privilege  is  granted  of  changing  the  text  to  suit  the  theory. 
Schleiden  is  also  at  fault  in  supposing  that  the  “ Egyptian  Sea  ” (the  Nile)  is  the 
Mediterranean. 

1 Chester  (as  above,  p.  156)  says  unqualifiedly : “ It  is  remarkable  that  throughout 
the  direct  narrative  there  is  no  mention  of  a Jam  Suph,  or  Sea  of  Reeds,  at  all.  The 
Jam,  the  Sea,  alone  is  spoken  of.”  And  this  in  the  face  of  two  mentions  of  Yam 
Sooph  in  the  direct  narrative ; one  at  Exod.  13 : 18 ; the  other  at  Exod.  15 : 22. 

2 To  deny  the  historical  verity  of  the  Bible  record  is  one  thing ; but  to  take  up  for 
examination  a Bible  story  as  if  it  were  veritable  history,  and  then  to  deny  the  accu- 
racy of  such  portions  as  fail  to  conform  to  one’s  pet  theory  of  the  history  which  has 
its  only  record  in  the  Bible,  can  hardly  be  called  a scholarly  method  of  study. 

3  Gen.  14  : 6,  7.  See  page  36/.,  supra.  * Num.  14  : 25. 


THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD. 


361 


derness.  They  were  to  take  the  same  road  from  Kadesh  to  the 
wilderness  that  Kedor-la’omer  had  taken  from  the  wilderness  to 
Kadesh.  “ Then  we  turned/7  says  Moses,  “ and  took  our  journey 
into  the  wilderness  by  the  Way  of  the  Red  Sea . [by  the  Red  Sea 
Road],  as  the  Lord  spake  unto  me.77 1 And  that  Red  Sea  Road  is, 
to-day,  as  well  defined  and  prominent  a southernmost  highway  out 
of  Lower  Egypt  eastward,  as  is  the  northernmost  road  toward 
Gaza,  which  marks  the  old-time  Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philis- 
tines; while  mid-way  between  the  two  are  the  unmistakable  traces 
of  the  central  highway  of  the  three,  the  Way  of  Shur. 

Brugsch,  whose  extended  studies  in  the  geography  of  Ancient 
Egypt  have  largely  shaped  popular  opinion  in  that  field  in  recent 
times,  is  seemingly  so  influenced  by  his  peculiar  theory  of  the 
route  of  the  exodus,  that  he  is  disinclined  to  recognize  the  traces 
of  more  than  one  ancient  highway  out  Lower  Egypt  eastward, 
while  he  does  not  seem  quite  decided  as  to  the  location  and  course 
of  that  one.1 2  The  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  already  re- 
ferred to,  was  disposed  by  the  theories  to  plunge  the  region  of  El- 
Qantarah  (north  of  Lake  Ballah)  under  water  in  the  days  of 
Moses.  Reginald  Stuart  Poole’s  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  led 
him  to  raise  El-Qantarah  as  the  single  pathway  of  that  period, 
while  he  sank  El-Gisr  (south  of  Lake  Ballah)  out  of  sight 
in  the  waters  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  To  avoid  either  of  these 
extremes,  yet  to  have  only  the  one  highway  which  his  theory  calls 
for,  Brugsch  skilfully  brings  the  two  plateaus  together,  which  now 
flank  Lake  Ballah,  at  the  north  and  the  south,  and  lays  one  of 

1 Deut.  2 : 1. 

2 In  one  place,  Brugsch  states  that  “ the  great  Pharaonic  road  ” was  the  one  on 
which  Khetam  was  one  of  the  main  stations  (j Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  387).  But  again  he 
insists  that  this  “ great  Pharaonic  road/’  “the  old  royal  road”  {Ibid.,  I.,  33C)  “the 
‘ Road  of  the  Philistines  ’ of  Holy  Scripture,  is  not  that  which  commenced  at  Khetam, 
the  Etham  of  the  Bible,  or  no  matter  what  other  town  in  its  neighborhood.”  {Ibid., 
II.,  430.) 


362 


KA  DESH-BARNEA. 


them  on  the  other,  giving  to  the  double-structure  the  compound 
“ name  of  Guisr-el-Qantharah,  ‘the  dyke  of  the  bridge’”  as  he 
calls  it,  although  that  term  might  properly  mean,  “ the  bridge  of  the 
arch.” 1 In  spite  of  the  separateness  of  the  two  plateaus  as  shown 
by  official  surveys,  and  of  the  distinctness  of  the  two  Arabic 
names,  as  proven  by  like  authoritative  records,  Brugsch  is  confident 
that  his  compound  site  of  an  old-time  roadway  “ must  be  regarded 
as  the  last  reminiscence  of  the  only  passage  which,  in  ancient 
times,  allowed  a traveller  to  enter  Egypt  dryshod  from  the  East.” 

Yet  in  his  Map  of  Ancient  Lower  Egypt2  Brugsch,  with  ap- 
parent unconsciousness,  gives  evidence  of  the  inaccuracy  of  this 
sweeping  statement  of  his.  Just  in  the  line  of  the  southernmost 
road — the  “ Way  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Bed  Sea  ” — he  notes 
the  “ Wilderness  Way  of  the  Bed' ween  into  Egypt  ” (“  Wustenweg 
der  Beduinen  nach  AEgypten”).  This  would  almost  seem  a para- 
phrasing of  the  Hebrew  designation  of  this  Boad ; and  Brugsch 
can  hardly  think  that  the  ancient  Sliasoo  were  accustomed  to  enter 
Egypt  from  their  wilderness  roaming-fields  in  boats.  Again,  on 
that  Map,  Brugsch  shows  the  summit-level  of  the  Isthmus,  the 
water-shed,  in  the  line  of  the  lakes,  to  be  just  north  of  Lake 
Timsah,  between  that  and  Lake  Ballah ; at  the  very  point  (El-Gisr) 
where,  as  it  has  been  shown,  the  Way  of  Shur  came  in  from  the 
eastward.  Certainly  there  seems  no  reason  (unless  it  be  found  in 
a preconceived  theory  of  the  exodus  which  has  to  be  sustained) 
why  this  table-land  summit  should  not,  in  ancient  times  as  in  later 

1 B rugs  eh ’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  388.  No  authority  is  given  by  Brugsch  for  this 
compound  name.  Is  it  possible  that  he  was  misled  by  the  Topographical  Chart  of 
Egypt  in  the  Atlas  of  the  Description  de  VJEgypte?  On  that  chart,  the  Qantarah 
passway  is  called  in  Arabic  “ Jisr-el-Qanatir ” which  might 

easily  be  mistaken  for“Jisr  el-Qantarah  ” but  the  French 

translation  of  the  Arabic,  on  the  Chart  (“Pont  du  Tresor ” “The  Bridge  of  the 
Treasury”),  shows  that  no  such  designation  as  Brugsch  suggests  was  here  intended. 

2 Accompanying  his  Hist,  of  Egypt. 


THE  YAM  SOOPH  ROAD . 


363 

ones,  have  “ allowed  a traveler  to  enter  Egypt  dryshod  from  the 
East.”  Indeed,  Brugsch’s  Map  of  Ancient  Egypt  taken  by  itself 
furnishes  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  three  high- 
ways out  of  Egypt  eastward,  which  the  Bible  refers  to  as  the 
“ Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,”  the  “ Way  of  Shur,”  and 
the  “Way  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea.” 

Moreover,  the  Egyptian  records  would  seem  to  give  plain  indi- 
cations of  more  roads  than  one.  In  the  ancient  scribe’s  report  of 
the  pursuit  of  two  fugitive  slaves,  to  which  a reference  has  already 
been  made,1  it  is  distinctly  declared  that  the  scribe  was  informed, 
at  the  barrier,  or  fortress,  of  Thukoo,  that  the  fugitives  “ had  de- 
cided to  go  by  the  southern  route.”  How  there  should  have  been 
any  doubt  as  to  the  route  they  would  take,  or  why  that  route 
should  be  called  the  “southern”  one,  if  there  was  but  one  road 
above  water  eastward,  is  certainly  not  easy  of  explanation.  Acting 
on  his  information  at  Thukoo,  the  scribe  continued  his  pursuit ; 
and  the  inference  from  the  records  as  it  stands  would  be,  that  his 
new  course  was  southerly,  in  the  supposed  direction  of  the  fugi- 
tives. Having  reached  the  Great  Wall  (“Khetam”),  he  received 
news  that  “the  fugitives  had  got  beyond  the  region  of  the  Wall  to 
the  north  of  the  Migdol  of  king  Seti  Mineptah.”2  This  looks  as  if 
the  Migdol  here  mentioned  was  yet  southward  of  the  scribe’s  point 
of  reaching  the  Wall ; but  Brugsch,  in  his  narrative  of  the 
exodus  affirms  that  the  fugitives  “ had  taken  the  northerly  di- 
rection,” instead  of  the  “ southern  ” one  as  reported  to  the  scribe. 
Brugsch  was,  indeed,  in  a sense,  shut  up  to  this  opinion  by  his 
theory  of  the  one  road  out  of  Egypt,  easterly,  and  of  one  Migdol 
(and  that  a town),  on  the  line  of  that  road. 

1 From  the  Anastasi  Papyri,  as  translated  by  Brugsch  {Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  389) 
and  quoted  in  this  work  (p.  47  supra). 

2 The  “Migdol  of  king  Seti  Mineptah”  was  the  Migdol  of  the  Well  (as  the  pic- 
tured inscription  at  Karnak  distinctly  declares) ; and  “ Beer  Makhdal”  (or  the 
Well  of  the  Migdol),  still  retains  its  name  on  the  line  of  the  Shur  Hoad  out  of  Egypt. 


364 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


7.  THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 

As  Brugsch’s  argument  in  support  of  his  theory  of  the  exodus 
has  depended  largely  on  his  claim  that  there  was  but  one  Migdol 
in  eastern  Lower  Egypt,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  he  has 
been  disinclined  to  see  the  full  force  of  any  indication  of  a Migdol 
elsewhere  than  at  the  site  he  has  preempted  for  it.  But  as  so 
much  is  involved  in  the  question  of  one  Migdol,  or  many,  it  is 
well  to  compare  the  opinions  of  Brugsch,  in  this  matter,  with  the 
facts  on  which  he  bases  them. 

Having  fixed  upon  a place,  now  known  as  “ Tell  es-Samoot,1  on 
the  eastern  side  of  Lake  Menzaleh,” 2 and  a short  distance  south- 
west of  the  site  of  Pelusium,  as  the  location  of  ancient  Migdol, 
Brugsch  proceeds  to  maintain  that  identification  against  all  oppo- 
nents or  doubters  whatsoever.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  : 
“ This  Migdol  is  the  only  place  of  that  name  which  I have  met  with 
in  the  Egyptian  geographical  texts ; among  more  than  three  thou- 
sand geographical  proper  names.”3  Yet  if  the  evidence  which 
Brugsch  proffers  in  defense  of  his  claim  be  examined,  it  will  be 
found  that  there  is  not  in  it  a particle  of  proof  that  here  was  even 
one  Migdol  among  many  in  the  days  of  the  Pharaohs.  There 
certainly  were  several  Migdols  elsewhere  in  Lower  Egypt  at  that 
period.  There  may  have  been  one  here.  That  is  the  best  that  can 
be  said  for  the  case  as  Brugsch  himself  presents  the  proofs. 

Brugsclfs  statement  of  the  case  is  : that  he  finds  on  the  monu- 
ments a “ Samhud  ” and  a “ Migdol,”  or  u Makthal,”  named  as  at 
the  same  place  ; 4 that  “ Samhud  ” (Arabic,  “ Samoot  ”)  is  an 
Egyptian  name,  and  “ Migdol  ” a Hebrew  one  ; 5 that  an  Egyptian 

1 IEst.  of  Egypt,  I.,  237/. 

2  The  Arabic  “ Tell  ” corresponding  with  the  Hebrew,  Tel  (^i?)  means  “ a mound, ’’ 
“a  heap,’’  especially  a heap  of  ruins.  See  Deut.  13  : 16. 

3  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  382. 

4  Diet,  Geog.,  pp.  707,  905.  6 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  237/. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


365 


inscription  of  the  days  of  Amenhotep  IV.,  of  the  Eighteenth 
Dynasty,  speaks  of  the  stretch  of  Egypt  from  Samhud  to  Ele- 
phantine,1 while  a prophecy  of  Ezekiel2  speaks  similarly  of  the 
stretch  from  Migdol  to  Syene,  as  if  Samhud,  or  Migdol,  was  the 
northern  landmark  of  Egypt,  as  Elephantine,  or  Syene,  was  the 
southern  one ; that  the  Antonine  Itinerary  refers  to  a “ Magdo- 
lum  ” as  twelve  Roman  miles  from  Pelusium  in  a southerly  direc- 
tion,3 a distance  which  well  corresponds  with  the  modern  u Tell  es- 
Samoot ; ” 4 that  a “ Makthal  ” was  near  the  return  road  of  Setee  I., 
as  he  re-entered  Egypt  from  his  Syrian  campaign  ;5  that  a Migdol 
was  near  the  position  of  Rameses  III.,  when  he  watched  a battle 
on  the  sea  near  Pelusium  ;6  and  finally  that  there  is  no  Egyptian 
mention  of  more  Migdols  than  one.7 

Now  what  is  the  force  of  this  evidence  in  its  details  ? “ Sam- 

hud,or  “ Samhudt,”  or  “ Samhudti,”  is,  according  to  Brugsch’s 
own  admissions,  " the  name  of  many  places  situated  in  Lower 
Egypt/;  8 as  proved  by  the  ancient  monuments.  And  “ the  more 
important  of  the  cities  named  i Samhud ? is  that  which  the  lists 
designate  as  the  Metropolis  of  the  Seventeenth  Nome.” 

This  preeminent  Samhud  of  Lower  Egypt  “ is  the  same  city  the 
situation  of  which  is  indicated  by  the  position  of  the  modern  city 
of  Damietta  ” 9 — the  present  name  of  which  is  obviously  a relic  of 
the  ancient  one.  A glance  at  the  map  will  show  that  Damietta  is 
a salient  northern  land-mark  of  the  coast  of  Egypt.  It  stood,  of 
old,  at  a central  point  of  the  coast  line  of  Lower  Egypt  proper, 
midway  between  the  Pelusiac  arm  of  the  Nile  eastward,  and  the 
Canopic  arm  westward.10  Then,  as  now,  if  one  were  to  speak  of 

1  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  498  ; II.,  381  /. 

2  Ezek.  29 : 10,  as  rendered  in  the  margin,  “ From  Migdol  to  Syene.” 

3  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  427.  4 Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  426. 

5 Ibid.,  II.,  11-14.  Ubid.,  II.,  153  f.  * Ibid.,  II.,  389. 

8 Diet.  Geog.,  p.  704.  9 Diet.  Geog .,  p.  704. 

10  “ We  can  have  little  hesitation  in  considering  the  inhabitants  included  between 


366 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Egypt  from  its  northern  to  its  southern  limits,  he  would  naturally 
tell  of  the  stretch  from  Damietta  to  Elephantine,  or  to  Aswan. 
Who  can  doubt  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  were  as  familiar  as  the 
modern  archeologist  with  the  relative  prominence  of  the  Phatnitic1 
Samhud,  in  comparison  with  all  the  other  Samhuds  of  Lower 
Egypt  ? Why  should  we  question  that  the  Samhud  spoken  of  as 
a well-known  northern  boundary  line,  was  the  Samhud  which  was 
a well-known  northern  boundary  line,  instead  of  an  insignificant 
Samhud  which  by  its  very  location  could  not  have  been  a northern 
boundary  limit  of  Egypt ; and  which  we  have  historical  reasons 
for  knowing  never  was  such  a limit  ? Except  for  its  supposed  value 
in  bolstering  up  a preconceived  theory  of  the  exodus,  Tell  es-Samoot 
could  never  have  been  seriously  considered  in  this  connection. 

Now,  as  to  the  coincidence  of  Samhud  and  Migdol.  If — as 
some  of  Brugsch’s  followers  have  not  unnaturally  inferred,  but 
which  he  himself  does  not  directly  assert2 — Samhud  is  simply  the 
Egyptian  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  Migdol,  of  course  every  Sam- 
hud was  also  a Migdol ; and  as  the  Samhuds  of  Lower  Egypt 
were  many,  so  also  were  the  Migdols.  Since,  however,  the  testi- 
mony of  Brugsch  is  only  that  one  u Samhud,”  also  called  “ Atef,” 
was  designated  in  the  days  of  the  B-amessids  as  the  place  of  u Pa- 

the  branches  of  the  Nile  to  have  been  for  the  most  part  of  pure  Egyptian  race.  The 
line  of  demarcation,  which  separated  this  race  from  the  neighboring  peoples  was 
formed  on  the  west  by  the  Canopic  branch  of  the  Nile,  as  by  the  Pelusiac  branch  on 
the  opposite  side  toward  the  East  ”.  (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  228  /.,  and 
236.) 

1 See  Stanley  Lane-Poole’s  Egypt , p.  31. 

2 Comp.  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  238,  498;  II.,  381,  426;  his  Diet.  Geog., 
p.  1050;  Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  p.  123;  Chester’s  “Journey,”  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal. 
“ Special  Papers,”  p.  101;  Baedeker’s  Lower  Egypt,  p.  470;  etc.  Poole  speaks  of 
ancient  “ Migdol”  as  a “place  having,  like  Zoan,  a double  name,  one  Semitic,  and 
the  other  (Samut)  Egyptian.”  Baedeker,  usually  accurate  in  such  matters,  goes 
farther,  and  speaks,  as  if  from  Brugsch,  of  “ the  Egyptian  name  of  Samut  (also  sig- 
nifying a tower”).  But  Brugsch  himself  makes  no  such  assertion. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


367 


Makthal,”1  the  main  question  is,  Was  that  Samhud  located  on  the 
border  of  the  wilderness,  near  Pelusium?  Brugsch  shows  that 
“ Atef,”  was  at  one  time  the  metropolis  of  a nome  bearing  the 
same  name.2  Raineses  III.  tells  of  his  honors,  in  being  “ crowned 
with  the  Atef-crown.”3  That  Damietta — or  the  city  which  it  has 
succeeded — may  have  been  such  a metropolis  as  this  is  possible. 
Brugsch,  indeed,  says4  of  the  latter  city,  that  it  “ was  a second  The- 
bes, a second  city  of  Amon;”  that  it  bore  a “ whole  set  of  names 
that  it  was  called,  among  other  designations,  “ * Na-mehit / * the  city 
( par  excellence)  of  the  North/  as  Thebes  is  called  Na-ris  the  city  of 
the  South  / ” and  that  its  importance  “ close  to  the  sea,  was  pre- 
eminent in  ancient  times  as  at  the  present  day.”  It  would  have 
been  not  unworthy  of  a Rameses  to  speak  proudly  of  assuming  “ the 
Atef  crown,  together  with  the  Urseus  serpents,”  in  accepting  the 
sovereignty  of  a metropolis  like  that , with  its  “ whole  set  of 
names,”  including  “ Samhud  ” and  “ Pa-Makthal  ” ; but  to  suggest 
such  a thing  of  a region  like  Tell  es-Samoot,  seems  an  absurdity  on 
its  face. 

“ Migdol,”  whether  in  Egypt  or  out  of  it,  is  after  all  a recur- 
rence of  a Hebrew  common  noun,  meaning  “ a tower,”  or  “ a great 
tower.”  Its  first  appearance  in  the  Bible  is  as  the  “ migdol  ” of 
Babel.5  Afterwards  it  is  frequently  used — sometimes  interchange- 
ably with  bakhun ,6  bakhan ,7  or  bakhon 8 — with  or  without  an 
accompanying  local  appellative,  as  descriptive  of  a separate 
fortification,  or  of  a portion  of  a line  of  defences.9  It  would 

1 Diet.  Geog .,  pp.  707,  1050.  In  his  formal  arrangement  of  nomes,  Brugsch  clearly 
rests  his  assignment  of  “Atef,”  and  “ Samhud,”  and  “ lyiigdol  ” on  his  argument  in 
favor  of  Tell  es-Samoot ; in  other  words  he  reasons  in  a circle,  with  no  fixed  point 
proven  by  the  records. 

2 Ibid.  3 Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  144.  4 Ibid.,  II.,  418  /. 

3 Gen.  11 : 1-9.  6 Isa.  23 : 13. 

7 Isa.  32 : 14.  Comp.  2 Kings  17:  9;  18:  8.  8 Jer.  6 : 27. 

9 Gen.  35  : 21 ; Judg.  8:  17;  9 : 46,  47,  49,  51 ; 2 Chron.  14:  7;  Neh.  3 : 1,  25,  26,  27  ; 

12:  38,  39;  Psa.  48:  12;  61:  3;  Song  4:  4;  etc. 


368 


KADESH-BARNEA, 


appear  to  have  been  the  same  in  the  Egyptian  records  as  in  the 
Hebrew.  “ That  the  ancient  Egyptians  . . . were  well  acquainted 
with  the  meaning  of  this  word,  which  was  foreign  to  their  lan- 
guage, is  proved  most  conclusively  by  the  masculine  article 
prefixed  to  it,  and  the  sign  of  a wall  ( ) which  was  added  to  the 

foreign  word  when  written  in  Egyptian  characters.” 1 There  cer- 
tainly were  a great  many  “ towers,”  “ great  towers,”  “ watch- 
towers,”  and  “ fortress-towers  ” in  ancient  Lower  Egypt.  Whether 
those  towers  were  all  called  “ migdols  ” by  the  Egyptians  or  not, 
they  were  likely  to  be  so  called  by  the  Hebrews,  and  to  be  so 
designated  in  the  Hebrew  records.  Mariette,  indeed,  applies  the 
word  “ migdol  ” to  those  “ triumphal  towers  ” which  are  “ repre- 
sented in  the  bas-reliefs  of  Karnak,  of  Luxor,  of  the  Rameseum, 
and  of  Medinet-Abou  itself,  and  which  the  kings  of  Egypt  were 
wont  to  erect  on  their  frontier,  at  once  as  a means  of  defence,  and 
as  a memorial  of  their  victories.” 2 

A word  often  used  for  “ tower  ” in  the  Egyptian  records  is 
bekhen , bakhun , or  bekhent .3  This  word,  Brugsch  declares  to  be 
“ identical  with  the  Hebrew  bekhon ,”  and  to  mean  an  “ outlook,” 
u a tower  built  on  a hill.”  It  applies,  he  says,  to  “ any  building 
from  which  one  can  look  far  out  into  the  land,  and  which  itself  is 
visible  afar ; thence  any  house  standing  high ; a tower.”  This 
word  may  have  had  its  root  from  the  Hebrew,  or  again  it  may 
have  been  carried  into  the  Hebrew  from  Egyptian.  In  any  event 
it  is  a word  which  is  used  in  the  Hebrew  (as  has  already  been 
mentioned),  interchangeably  with  migdol,”  for  a “ watch-tower.” 4 
And  whatever  tower  was  called  (t  bekhen  ” in  the  Egyptian  might 
naturally  have  been  called  “ migdol”  in  the  Hebrew.  Forex- 
ample,  Brugsch  says  that  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  at 

1 Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.,  237.  2 Monuments  of  Upper  Egypt,  p.  209. 

3 Diet.  Geog.,  p.  648  /. 

i Comp,  as  above,  Isa.  23:  13;  32:  14;  Jer.  6:  27;  2 Kings  9:  17;  17:  9;  18:  8. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


369 


the  place  subsequently  called  Ostracine,  “ there  was  a bekhen,  or 
tower,  which  the  inscriptions  designate  as  Pa-nakhtu,  or  the  ‘ Con- 
queror’s Tower  ’ of  king  Seti.”  1 And  he  mentions  that  “ at  this 
point  the  proper  Egyptian  boundary  ended,  and  the  territory 
of  the  land  of  Zahi,  which  was  afterwards  the  land  of  the  Philis- 
tines, began.”  He  even  adds2  that,  in  the  days  of  Setee  I.,  this 
bekhen  was  called  “ the  Tower  ” [“  the  Migdol,”  as  the  Hebrews 
would  have  said].  Now  if  there  was  a “ Tower  ” (“  the  Tower  ”) 
at  the  extreme  territorial  limit  of  Egypt  northeasterly,  is  it  not 
more  probable  that  that  Tower  was  referred  to  by  the  prophet  when 
he  spoke  of  a boundary  Tower  northward,  than  that  he  had  in 
mind  a Tower  at  Tell  es-Samoot  (if  ever  there  was  a Tower  there), 
which  was  not  at  any  time  a limit  of  Egypt  either  eastward  or 
northward  ? 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  all  the  evidence  furnished  by  either 
the  Egyptian  or  the  Hebrew  records  of  the  location  of  Samhud,  or 
of  Migdol,  as  a northern  limit  of  Egypt, — while  there  is  much  in 
favor  of  Damietta  for  the  former,  if  not  indeed  for  both,  and  of 
Ostracine  for  the  latter,  there  is  literally  nothing  that  will  justify 
the  supposition  that  Tell  es-Samoot  was  the  site  of  either,  or  that 
it  was  anywhere  in  the  vicinity  of  either. 

There  is,  indeed,  no  need  to  suppose  that  the  term  Migdol  when 
used  as  a boundary  limit,  necessarily  applied  to  a single  place  of 
that  name.  The  migdols  were  the  border  towers  of  the  land,  the 
well-known  accompaniment  of  the  frontier  fortresses.  When  the 
Hebrew  prophet  would  speak  of  Egypt  from  its  northern  to  its 
southern  bounds,  it  was  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  stretch  from 
border-tower  to  red-granite  mountain,  “from  Migdol  to  Syene, 
even  unto  the  border  of  Ethiopia.”3  Thus  to-day,  in  the  United 
States,  one  might  speak  of  the  stretch  from  prairie-fort  to  the 

1 Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  13.  See  also  his  Map.  2 Diet.  Geog.,  p 129. 

3 Ezek.  29:  9,  10;  30:  6. 


24 


370 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Atlantic,  from  ocean  to  outpost,  without  being  supposed  to  have 
in  mind  one  particular  fortification  of  the  border ; far  less  a city 
bearing  the  name  “ Prairie-fort  ” or  “ Outpost.”  It  is  the  well- 
known  term  itself  which  carries  the  meaning  intended.  So  with 
the  term  Migdol  as  suggesting  the  northern  boundary  of  Egypt. 
There  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing  that  there  was  any  city  of 
that  name  on  the  borders  of  that  land  in  the  days  of  the  Pharaohs 
or  of  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah.1  All  the  available  evidence  is  against 
the  supposition.  See,  for  example  the  uses  of  the  term  migdol  in 
this  sense,  where  (2  Kings  17:9)  the  idolatrous  high-places  of  the 
Israelites  are  said  to  extend  “ from  the  tower  [the  migdol]  of  the 
watchman  to  the  fenced  city;”  and  where  (2  Kings  18:  8)  the 
sweep  of  Hezekiah’s  victories  over  the  Philistines  is  said  to  be 
thorough,  “from  the  tower  [the  migdol]  of  the  watchman  to  the 
fenced  city.” 

As  to  the  fact  that  there  was  a Well  of  Migdol,  or  a Migdol  of 
the  Well,  near  the  return  road  of  Setee  I.,  as  he  came  from  his 
Syrian  campaign,  it  has  already  been  shown  that  there  are  traces 
of  such  a place  in  “Bir-Maktal”  near  the  great  central  road,  the 
Way  of  Shur,  into  Egypt  from  Syria.2  Moreover,  according  to 
the  bas-relief  at  Karnak,  that  Migdol  was  clearly  on  the  Syrian 
side  of  the  line  of  the  Great  Wall.  Beer-Maklidal  answers  to  this 
requirement;  Tell  es-Samoot  does  not,  as  a glance  at  the  map 
will  show. 

In  the  records  of  Rameses  III.,  there  would  seem  to  be  even 
less  positive  testimony,  than  in  those  of  Setee  I.,  in  favor  of  a 
Migdol  at  Tell  es-Samoot,  or  its  neighborhood.  Brugsch  speaks 
confidently3  of  “a  naval  engagement  at  Migdol,  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Pelusiac  branch  of  the  Nile,”  in  the  days  of  Rameses  III. ; 

1 See  Jer.  44 : 1 ; 46 : 14,  where  Migdol  is  simply  the  northern  starting-point  of  the 
sweep  of  Egypt  toward  its  southern  country. 

2 See  page  351,  supra. 


Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  153. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


371 


and  he  proceeds  to  give  the  details  of  that  engagement  from  the 
Harris  Papyrus,  as  if  that  record  somehow  justified  his  statement. 
His  positiveness  so  carries  away  his  English  editor,  Mr.  Philip 
Smith,  that  the  latter  assumes  to  cite  the  “ testimony  ...  of  the 
Harris  Papyrus,  describing  Rameses  III.  encamped  (like  Israel) 
1 between  Migdol  and  the  sea ’ to  witness  the  victory  of  his  fleet.” 1 
But  in  the  translations  of  the  Harris  Papyrus  as  given  by  Brugsch 
in  his  “ History,” 2 or  as  published  in  the  “ Records  of  the  Past,”3 
there  is  no  mention  of  Migdol ; nor  is  there  any  indication  of  the 
naval  engagement  as  “ at  the  mouth  of  the  Pelusiac  branch  of  the 
Nile,”  or  in  the  region  of  Tell  es-Samoot.  The  basis  of  Brugsch’s 
claim  is,  probably,  the  pictured  records  of  Rameses  III.,  on  the 
walls  of  the  temple  of  Medeenet-Aboo  at  Thebes.  A naval  com- 
bat of  that  king’s  reign  is  represented  there;  and  as  Mariette  Bey 
says : 4 “ The  scene  is  laid  either  close  to  the  coast,  or  at  the 

mouth  of  some  river.”  Possibly  it  was  off  the  coast  from  Ostracine. 
One  of  the  pictures  of  this  series  represents  the  king,  on  his  return 
to  Egypt,  stopping  “ at  a fortified  place  called  ‘ Migdol  en  Rameses- 
Hak-On/” — the  Tower  of  Rameses,  Lord  of  On, — in  order  to 
count  the  number  of  hands  cut  off  from  the  vanquished  in  the 
battle.  Where  this  Migdol  was,  is  not  indicated  in  the  picture. 
It  may  have  been  the  Migdol  near  Ostracine ; or  again  it  may 
have  been  the  Migdol  near  the  Phatnitic  mouth  of  the  Nile,  at  the 
pre-eminent  Samhud  there.  Certainly  it  would  appear  from  its 
name  that  it  was  somewhere  else  than  at  “ the  Migdol  of  king  Seti 
Mineptah,”  which  Brugsch  would  locate  at  Tell  es-Samoot. 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  the  Antonine  Itinerary  locates  a Magdolum 
at  twelve  Roman  miles  southerly  from  Pelusium ; and  that  this 
identification  would  suit  the  site  of  Tell  es-Samoot,  as  it  might 
suit  a number  of  sites  within  a considerable  sweep  east  and  west. 


1 Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  427,  note. 

8 Vol.  VI.,  pp.  23  70 ; Vol.  VIII.,  pp.  5-52. 


2 Ibid.,  II.,  153-155. 

<Mon.  of  Upper  Egypt , p.  221. 


372 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


This  evidence  is,  in  fact,  the  only  item  of  proof  that  there  was  ever 
a trace  of  a “ Migdol  ” at  Tell  es-Samoot  at  any  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  race.  And  the  Antonine  Itinerary  does  not,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  go  far  back  of  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  At 
the  best  it  shows  only  that,  say  fifteen  centuries  after  the  days  of 
the  exodus,  there  was  a station  on  a Roman  road  from  Pelusium 
southward  to  Serapeum,  which  bore  a name  based  on  the  old 
Hebrew  term  Migdol,  a name  then  held  by  various  places,  stretch- 
ing from  the  Magdala  on  the  shores  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  in  the 
north,1  to  the  Magdala  among  the  mountains  of  Abyssinia2  in 
the  south.3 

In  fact,  although  it  is  not  easy  to  find  any  proof  that  there  was 
a Migdol  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tell  es-Samoot  in  the  days  of 
the  Pharaohs,  it  is  easy  to  show  that  there  were  more  or  less 
Egyptian  Migdols  elsewhere  in  that  age,  notwithstanding  the  un- 
qualified assertion  of  Brugsch  that  he  has  found  no  other  Mig- 
dol mentioned  “in  the  Egyptian  geographical  texts,  among 
more  than  three  thousand  geographical  proper  names.”4  Apart 
from  the  “ Makthel,”  on  the  Karnak  list  of  places  conquered  by 
Thotmes  III.,  which  Brugsch  identifies  with  “Migdol,”5  but 
whether  or  not  with  his  Tell  es-Samoot-Migdol,  does  not  appear,6 
the  latter  certainly  finds  in  the  scribe’s  report  (already  referred  to) 

1 The  supposed  home  of  Mary  Magdal-ene.  See  Neubauer’s  Geog.  du  Talmud, 

p.  216  /. 

2 Where  King  Theodore  committed  suicide,  April  13,  1868 ; and  for  the  capture  of 
which  General  Napier  was  created  Baron  of  Magdala. 

3Perizonius  ( JEgypt . Orig.,  p.  416)  discussing  the  ancient  cities  of  Egypt  and  Pales- 

tine says  that  there  were  often  many  cities  of  one  name ; “ certainly  there  were  many 
Migdols.” 

*Hist.  of  Egypt,  II.,  382.  5 Ibid.,  I.,  392. 

6 The  place  of  this  name  in  the  lists  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  is  in  central  or 
upper  Palestine;  but  as  Brugsch  insists  {Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  12,  132)  that  up  to  the 
time  of  Setee  I.  the  Shasoo  still  claimed  the  eastern  Delta  as  their  own,  it  is  more 
than  possible  that  he  looks  upon  this  “ Migdol  ” as  the  one  of  which,  in  his  opinion, 
Tell  es-Samoot  covers  the  remains. 


THE  MANY  MIG  DOES. 


373 


concerning  the  fugitive  slaves,  a mention  of  a Migdol  which  has 
an  identity  quite  by  itself,  at  the  same  time  that  it  indicates  the 
probability  of  other  “ Migdols  ” from  which  it  is  to  be  distin- 
guished. 

It  is  “ the  Migdol  of  king  Seti  Mineptah  ” which  the  fugitives 
are  said  to  have  passed.1  If  there  was  but  one  Migdol  in  Lower 
Egypt,  why  was  it  necessary  to  distinguish  it  in  this  manner  ? 
Does  not  this  distinctive  description  in  itself  furnish  presumptive 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  more  Migdols  than  one  ; of  a Migdol 
which  was  not  “ the  Migdol  of  king  Seti- Mineptah, ??  as  well  as  of 
a Migdol  which  was  f As  if  to  put  the  proof  of  his  own  error 
beyond  all  dispute,  Brugsch  further  admits  that  he  finds  mention 
of  a “ Migdol  Raineses  Haqan,” 2 in  the  days  of  Raineses  III. ; and 
this  is  at  least  the  fourth  Migdol  which  he  reports  out  of  the  texts 
where  he  is  confident  that  only  one  is  named. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  Brugsch  is  so  possessed  of  his  il  pre- 
conceived theory  of  the  exodus,”  and  so  swayed  by  its  supposed 
necessities,  that  he  deliberately  takes  “ Migdol,”  “ Pa-Migdol,” 
“ the  Migdol  of  king  Seti-Mineptah,”  “ the  Migdol  of  Rameses 
Haqan,”  and  all  the  other  Migdols  of  the  monuments  and  the 
papyri,  and  piles  one  of  them  on  the  other,  at  the  site  of  Tell  es- 
Samoot,  saying  to  his  admiring  and  enthusiastic  followers  : “ Go 
to,  let  us  build  us  a city,  and  a tower  [a  ‘ migdol  ’],  whose  top  may 
reach  unto  heaven  ; and  let  us  make  us  a name.” 3 And  the  result 
of  this  Migdol-building  is  the  same  as  at  the  Migdol  of  Babel  : 
there  is  a confusion  of  language  among  those  who  would  have  a 
part  in  it,  or  who  would  learn  of  the  facts  involved  ; so  “ that  they 
may  not  understand  one  another's  speech  ” — without  the  aid  of  a 

lHist.  of  Egypt,  II.,  138,  389.  See  pages  47,  363,  supra. 

2 Diet.  Geog.,  p.  310.  This  is,  doubtless,  the  Migdol  of  Rameses-Haq-On,  pictured 
at  Medeenet  Aboo,  as  mentioned  on  page  371,  supra. 


3 Gen.  11 : 4. 


374 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


studious  and  an  unbiassed  interpreter.  And  this  is  what  Mr. 
Philip  Smith  points  to  approvingly  as  “ the  geographical  determi- 
nation of  the  places  in  question,”  as  over  against  “ the  invention  of 
sites  to  suit  a preconceived  theory  of  the  exodus ! ” 1 

Traces  of  more  than  one  Migdol  in  Lower  Egypt  are  not  lack- 
ing in  the  Arabic  and  Coptic  nomenclature  of  that  region.  Cham- 
pollion 2 pointed  out  two  places  there  which  bear  the  Coptic  name 
“ Meshtol  ” 3 — by  which  the  Coptic  version  renders  the  name  Mig- 
dol in  Exodus  14:  2.  Ebers4  would  see  a correspondence  of  the 
Coptic  “ Meshtol  ” with  the  Arabic  “ Maschtul,” 5 and  “ of  such 
Maschthls  ” he  says  “ there  were  a moderately  great  number,  accord- 
ing to  the  tax-list  given  by  Silvestre  de  Sacy  in  his  translation  of 
Abd-el-Lateef.”  At  all  events,  in  addition  to  these  supposed 
identifications,  it  is  evident  that  there  are  traces  of  an  ancient 
Migdol  in  the  neighborhood  of  each  of  the  three  great  roads 
through  the  Great  Wall  desertward,  as  might  be  supposed  from  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  in  a fortification  like  that. 

1.  A Migdol  at  the  central  road,  or  the  Way  of  Shur,  stands 
out  in  unmistakable  identity  in  the  Beer  Makhdal,  already  referred 
to.6  In  the  preservation  of  the  name  of  an  ancient  site  in  Arabic, 
there  is  far  stronger  proof  of  identity  than  can  be  furnished  in  the 
filtration  of  that  name  through  the  Greek  or  Latin.  In  this  in- 
stance, the  Arabic  name  corresponds  closely  with  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Egyptian.  The  engineers  who  made  the  surveys  for  the  great 
map  of  the  French  Commission7  at  the  close  of  the  last  century, 
entered  that  name  on  their  charts  in  Arabic  characters,  the  phonetic 
force  of  which  was  nearly  identical  with  the  Egyptian  characters 

1 Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  423,  note. 

2 L’Egypte  sous  les  Pharaons,  II.,  69  /.,  79  /.  3 Coptic, 

4 Gosen  zum  Sinai , p.  523.  5 Arabic,  6 See  page  351,  supra. 

7 “ Carte  Topographique,”  in  Descrip,  de  VEgypte.  It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that 

the  savants  of  the  French  Republic  of  1798  were  influenced  in  their  scientific 

researches  by  any  preconceived  theory  of  the  Hebrew  exodus. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


375 


that  marked  the  site  of  that  well  on  the  earliest  known  map  in  the 
world’s  history,1  as  still  preserved  on  the  temple  walls  of  Karnak. 

2.  Although  there  is  no  Arabic  vestige  of  a Migdol  near  the 
northernmost  road,  or  the  Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,  the 
reference  to  a Magdolum  in  the  Antonine  Itinerary  gives  a proba- 
ble trace  of  the  ancient  site  of  a Migdol  in  that  vicinity.  But 
whether  that  site  is  at  Tell  el-Heer,  as  supposed  by  many,2  or  at 
Tell  Sahan,  as  suggested  by  Poeocke,3  or  at  Tell  es-Samoot,  as  ad- 
vocated by  Brugsch  and  others,4  is  bv  no  means  clear;  nor  is  it  of 
much  importance  as  bearing  on  the  point  now  at  issue — that  there 
was  a Migdol  near  the  northernmost  road  into  Egypt  from  the 
East.  There  is  much  in  favor  of  the  site  of  Tell  el-Heer,  from 
its  superior  advantages  for  the  place  of  a look  out  tower.  “From 
the  height  of  the  eminence  occupied  by  these  ruins,”  say  Joanne 
and  Isambert,5  “ the  eye  embraces  an  extended  horizon.”  “ It  is 
at  once  evident  to  the  eye,”  adds  Chester,6  “that  this  was  an  im- 
portant frontier  fortress,  and  its  importance  is  such  as  to  justify  its 
being  considered  the  Migdol,  or  Fortress,  par  excellence,  and  to 
justify  the  Greeks  in  continuing  and  perpetuating  its  more  ancient 
name  under  that  of  Magdolon.”  The  claim  of  Lepsius,  as  rein- 
forced by  Brugsch,7  that  Tell  el-Heer  is  a vestige  of  “ the  ancient 

1 It  may  be  a question  whether  this  map  is  earlier  than  the  map  of  the  gold  mines, 
preserved  in  a papyrus  at  the  Turin  museum  (reproduced  in  fac-simile  in  Chabas’ 
Inscriptions  des  Mines  d’ Or,  at  p.  30). 

2 Joanne  and  Isambert’s  Itinera  ire  de  I?  Orient,  p.  1013;  Smith’s  Ancient  Atlas , 
Map  39;  Keith  Johnston’s  map  of  “Modern  Egypt  and  Sinai”  in  The  Bible  Atlas; 
Chester,  in  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Special  Papers,”  p.  100,  etc. 

3  Map  in  Descrip,  of  the  East. 

*Hist.  of  Egypt,  I.,  237  /.,  II.,  381;  Lepsius’s  Denkm.,  Ahth.  I.,  Bl.  3;  Smith’s 
Ancient  Atlas,  Map  33 ; Map  of  Egypt,  in  A Thousand  Miles  up  the  Nile,  etc. 

5 Itin'eraire,  as  above.  6 “ Special  Papers,”  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  p.  100. 

7 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  235  jf.,  270;  II.,  428,  431.  It  is  true  that  Brugsch  says  in  one 
place  that  “ there  is  scarcely  a hope  of  ever  again  finding  the  ancient  site  of  the  lost 

Hyksos  city  of  Avaris”  (I.,  237),  but  then  again  he  says:  “Lepsius,  after  his  jour- 


376 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Hau?ar,  (or  Avaris,)  of  the  Egyptian  texts,”  by  no  means  conflicts 
with  the  idea  that  the  Migdol  which  guarded  the  northernmost 
highway  into  Egypt  was  located  at  this  point.  It  is  certainly  as 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  there  was  a Migdol  at  the  metropolis  of 
Avaris  eastward,  as  that  there  was  a Migdol  at  the  metropolis  of 
Samhud  (Damietta),  northward.  As  against  the  claim  that  Tell 
es-Samoot  was  the  site  of  a Migdol,  it  would  seem  rather  that  a 
lookout  tower  is  needed  to  recognize  that  site,  than  that  it  marks 
the  site  of  a lookout  tow^er.  Chester  was  unable  to  find  its  loca- 
tion, or  to  get  any  track  of  it  from  the  Arabs  of  the  region  ques- 
tioned by  him.1  Although  Brugsch  still  insists,  and  with  reason, 
that  the  site  was  known  by  its  present  name  as  early  as  the  four- 
teenth century,  that  it  is  known  by  all  the  authors  “ of  modern 
times,  and  that  no  doubt  can  exist  on  the  subject  of  this  identi- 
fication,” he  does  not  claim  that  it  occupies  a commanding  position 
for  a look-out  tower,  over  against  a royal  highway  into  ancient 
Egypt ; and  as  every  other  reason  suggested  by  him  for  its  identi- 
fication with  Migdol  has  been  shown  to  have  no  weight,  it  can 
now  hardly  be  said  that  Tell  es-Samoot  is  to  be  compared  with 
Tell  el-Heer  for  that  identification.  But,  at  Tell  el-Heer,  or  at 
some  other  point  in  that  region,  there  is  a site  of  the  Magdolum  of 
the  Antonine  Itinerary,  which  in  its  time  marked  the  site  of  the 
earlier  Migdol  that  guarded  the  northernmost  highway  into 
Egypt ; and  so  there  are  found  traces  of  a Migdol  for  the  Way  of 
the  Land  of  the  Philistines,  as  for  a Migdol  of  the  Way  of  Shur. 

3.  At  the  southern  road  also,  the  “ Way  of  the  Wilderness  of 
the  Bed  Sea,”  there  are  Arabic  traces  of  the  Migdol  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  there . A short  distance  to  the  northwest  of  Suez, 

ney  to  these  regions  proved , in  a dear  and  perfect  manner , the  identity  of  Tell  el - 
Hir  with  the  Hau’ar,  or  Avaris  of  the  Egyptian  texts  ” (II.,  431).  Brugsch  can  be 
depended  on  for  both  sides  of  almost  any  question  which  has  the  possibility  of  a 
two-fold  advantage,  in  the  story  of  the  exodus. 

1 Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Special  Papers,”  p.  99  f. 


THE  MANY  MIGDOLS. 


377 


beyond  Qala’at  ’Ajrood,  there  is  a station,  or  a pass,  known  as 
El-Maktal ,l  El-Muktala ,2  El-Muntala ,3  El-Muntulaf  Montala ,5  or 
El-Mukhdfeh.&  It  is  directly  on  the  line  of  the  Hajj  route,  and 
near  the  track  noted  by  Brugsch  as  the  “ Way  of  the  Bed'ween 
into  Ancient  Egypt.”  The  Arabic  names  for  “tower,”  and  “watch- 
tower,”  and  “ outlook,”  are  various,  including  mejdel,7  muntdr* 
muntarah ,9  mutallah ; 10  and  the  elements  of  these  names  are  found 
in  the  alternative  designations  of  the  pass  in  question,11  with  the 
exception  of  the  last  named  ( El-Mukhafeh ),  and  that  suggests  a 
place  of  danger.12  Wilkinson13  judged  “ from  its  name  and  posi- 
tion,” that  this  represents  “ the  Migdol  of  the  Bible.”  It  is  at  a 
point  near  which  one  would  naturally  expect  to  find  an  outlook 
station,14  for  guarding  that  entrance  into  Egypt  from  the  eastward. 

1 See  Wilson’s  Lands  of  the  Bible , I.,  45. 

2 Wilkinson’s  Mod.  Egypt  and  Thebes,  I.,  303 ; Strauss’s  Sinai  und  Golgatha , 
p.  91;  Keith  Johnston’s  Royal  Atlas,  Map  42;  Clark  and  Grove’s  Bible  Atlas, 
p.  17 ; A Thousand  Miles  up  the  Nile,  Map  ; etc. 

3Lepsius’s  Denkm.,  Abth.  1,  Bl.  3;  Baedeker’s  Lower  Egypt,  Map  of  “Suez 
Canal,”  etc. 

4  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  44;  Smith’s  Anc.  Atlas , map  39;  Murray’s  Syria  and 
Pal.,  Map  of  Lower  Egypt ; etc.. 

5  Burckhardt’s  Travels  in  Syria,  p.  629. 

6 This  is  given  as  an  alternative  name  by  Robinson  (Bib.  Res.,  I.,  44),  with  the 
meaning  “fear;  ” and  it  appears  in  Lepsius’s  Denkm.,  Abth.  1,  Bl.  3. 

7 J • See  Surv.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Name  Lists,”  pp.  30,  52,  85,  114,  131,  etc. 

8 . Ibid.,  pp.  131,  151,  165,  205,  235,  etc. 

9  K jJ^AuO.  Ibid.,  p.  186.  io  kJLkxs  . Ibid.,  pp.  30,  432. 

11  Eli  Smith  (in  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  III.,  223,  first  ed.)  gives  “the  ascent” 
as  the  meaning  of  el-Muntula;  but  the  illustrations  already  cited  from  the  Survey  of 
Western  Palestine  show  that  the  name  suggests  an  ascent  as  for  an  outlook. 

12  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  44.  13  Mod.  Egypt  and  Thebes,  I.,  303. 

14  Strangely  enough  Keil  and  Delitzsch  (Bib.  Com.  at  Exod.  14:  2)  object  to  iden- 
tifying this  name  with  Migdol,  on  the  ground  “that  a tower  [ migdol ] does 

not  indicate  a watch-tower  j [mitspeK].  Yet  it  is  clear  that  “migdol”  is  so 

applied  and  rendered  again  and  again  in  the  Old  Testament.  “ The  tower  [migdol] 
of  the  watchman  ” (2  Kings  17 : 9 ; 18 : 8) ; “ There  stood  a watchman  on  the  tower 
[migdol]”  (2  Kings  9:  17),  etc. 


378 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Several  roads  from  the  north  and  west  come  together  just  before 
reaching  this  point,  and  here  is  a turn  of  the  main  highway  toward 
the  Red  Sea  and  the  Hajj  route  at  the  head  of  that  sea.1  A hill 
near  the  pass  bears  the  same  name  as  the  pass  ;2  and  Burckhardt 
tells  of  it  as  still  used  as  a lookout  station  by  robbers.3  Laborde4 
also  saw  an  identification  with  the  ancient  Migdol  in  this  Arabic 
name.  The  very  fact  that  the  resemblances  are  various  in  the 
varying  names  of  the  place,  gives  added  force  to  the  reasons  in 
support  of  this  identification ; for  it  shows  that  there  has  been  no 
modern  fixing  of  the  old  site  in  Arabic  nomenclature.5  In  spite  of 
all  forgetfulness  of  the  earlier  signification  of  the  name,6  and  in 
spite  of  all  the  warping  influences  of  a hundred  generations,  the 
unmistakable  traces  of  the  original  name  are  there . 

And  so  we  find  that  “ Migdol  ” is  not  the  name  of  a single  city  ; 

1Mod.  Egypt  and  Thebes,  pp.  302-308.  2 See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  44. 

3  Travels  in  Syria,  p.  629. 

4 Laborde  is  cited,  to  this  effect,  by  Dr.  Wilson  ( Lands  of  the  Bible,  I.,  45). 

5 In  his  partisan  advocacy  of  Brugsch’s  one-Migdol  claim,  Philip  Smith  {Hist,  of 
Egypt,  II.,  427,  note)  says  sweepingly : “A  Migdol  near  the  Gulf  of  Suez  is  a purely 
imaginary  site  invented  to  suit  that  theory  ” — whatever  “ that  theory”  may  be.  But 
it  is  evident  that  the  old-time  Arabs  were  responsible  for  this  “ invention.” 

6 It  even  seems  that  the  modern  Arabs  would  call  this  place  Maqtaleh  ( xJUciLo  ) 

“slaughter,”  or  the  “place  of  slaughter”  (of  Pharaoh’s  host?),  as  a change  from 
Makhdal  ( ),  or  Mejdel  ( J^V<i  * ) a “tower;”  through  their  habit  of 

applying  an  odd  name,  of  forgotten  signification,  under  a new  form,  or  with  a new 
meaning.  (See  Wilkinson  and  Wilson,  as  above.)  But  the  alternative  designations  of 
the  place  stand  as  added  proofs  of  the  earlier  meaning.  In  illustration  of  the  habit 
of  the  Arabs  here  referred  to,  see  Palmer’s  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  I.,  20,  “ In  many 
parts  of  Palestine  we  find  the  Hebrew  words  just  sufficiently  distorted  from  their 
original  form  to  give  them  an  intelligible  Arabic  meaning.  In  Wady  Feiran,  for 
example,  there  is  an  evident  reminiscence  of  the  ancient  name  Paran.  The  Bedawin 
are  unable  to  pronounce  the  letter  p,  and  the  word  becoming  Faran,  the  Valley  of 
Mice,  a name  which  would  appear  particularly  applicable  to  a place  where  their 
monkish  predecessors  had  covered  the  hill-sides  with  excavated  tombs  and  cells 
resembling,  as  the  natives  say,  the  burrows  of  field  mice  or  jerboas.”  See  also  Surv. 
of  West.  Pal.,  “Name  Lists,”  p.  53  {En-Nakurah). 


NO  CITIES  ON  THE  ROUTE. 


379 


but  is  a common  noun  applied  to  many  an  outlook-tower  in 
Egypt  and  beyond.  And  especially  are  there  traces  of  a Migdol 
at,  or  near,  each  of  the  three  great  highways  out  of  Lower  Egypt 
eastward.  This  leaves  still  untouched  the  question,  Which  Migdol 
is  referred  to  in  the  Bible  story  of  the  Exodus  ? 

8.  NO  CITIES  ON  THE  ROUTE. 

A similar  error  to  that  so  commonly  made  with  reference  to  Mig- 
dol, has  misled  students  at  several  other  points  in  the  exodus  story. 
The  search  has  been  for  the  site  of  a city  or  a town,  when  no  city  or 
town  was  referred  to  in  the  Bible  record.  As  Etham  was  a Wall, 
and  as  Migdol  was  a Tower,  so  the  earlier  stations  of  Succoth  and 
Rameses  were  districts  or  regions,  and  not  cities — of  which  the 
ruins  are  likely  to  be  unearthed  in  the  course  of  later  Egyptian  re- 
searches. 

There  has  been  a vast  deal  of  discussion  over  the  probable  site 
of  the  city  of  Rameses;  and  there  have  been  attempts  to  show 
that  the  treasure-city,1  or  more  properly  the  grain-magazine,2 


1 Exod.  1 : 11. 

2 “It  is  said  of  the  Israelites  (Exod.  1 : 11),  ‘ They  built  for  Pharaoh  treasure  cities, 
Pithorn  and  Raamses  ’ ( vayyeben  ’ arai  meskinoth  le- Phare*  oh  eth-Pithom  va-eth 
Ra’amses  DDDjn-riXl  Dn*J-f\K  njHflb  niJDDO  'Ip  pi).  Whatever  the  Egyptolo- 
gists may  bring  forward  to  prove  the  word  meskinoth  (mJDDD)  Egyptian,  the  unpre- 
judiced investigator  cannot  part  with  the  conviction  that  it  is  a regularly  formed 
Hebrew  word,  and  comes  from  a genuine  Hebrew  root.  Meskinoth  (nilDDD)  means 
nothing  else  than  magazines  in  which  grain  and  food  were  stored.  See  2 Chron.  32 : 
28,  magazines  (oameskinoth  lethbooath  dagan  ve-teerosh  ve-yitshar  nXUjV?  filJDDEb) 
in VI  t*nvni  pi  for  the  tithes  of  grain,  wine  and  oil.  In  Deut.  8:  9 it  is  said  of 
Palestine:  ‘A  land  in  which  thou  shalt  not  eat  bread  out  of  magazines y [as  in 
Egypt]  ( Erets  asherlo  bimeskenuth  tokal  beh  lekhem.  SuXjI  HJDDDD  fcf?  yi^ 

□nS  n2)*  That  meskenuth  signifies  the  same  as  meskinoth  ^mippD) 

certainly  will  not  be  disputed.  Pithorn  and  Raamses,  then,  were  towns  in  which 
reserves  of  bread  stuffs  lay  stored.”  (Graetz’s  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.,  382.) 

‘•The  treasure  cities,  or  store  cities,  were  probably  erections  at  the  termini  or  prin- 


380 


KA  DESH-BAENEA. 


named  in  our  English  version  as  u Raamses,” 1 one  of  the  two 
treasuries  built  by  the  Hebrews  during  the  period  of  the  oppres- 
sion, was  the  same  as  “ Rameses,”  the  starting  point  of  the  Israelites 
on  their  exodus.2  It  has  been  claimed,  with  a good  show  of 
reason,  that  the  city  of  Zoan,3  or  Tanis,4  or  San,5  was  the  capital 
city  of  Rameses  II.  and  his  sons;  and  the  further  claim  has  been 
made  (although  that  point  is  in  dispute),  that  this  city,  having 
been  enlarged  and  practically  rebuilt  by  Rameses  II.,  received  the 
name  i(  Rameses ” at  that  time.6  And  out  of  all  this  discussion 
there  has  come  the  popular  opinion,  that  the  starting  point  of  the 
Israelites  was  at  the  capital  of  the  Pharaohs.  Yet  this  opinion 
not  only  has  no  syllable  of  proof  on  which  to  rest,  in  the  Bible 
text ; but  it  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  specific  statements  and 
the  general  tenor  of  that  text. 

When  the  Hebrews  came  into  Egypt,  in  the  days  of  Joseph, 
they  were  assigned  a dwelling-place  in  the  land  of  Goshen.7  The 
region  given  to  them  at  that  time  is  called  by  prolepsis  “ the  land 
of  Rameses.”8  This  may  mean  that  it  was  the  land  on  the  verge 
of  which  they  afterwards  built  the  treasure-city  Raamses,  or 

cipal  stations  of  the  caravan  routes,  such  as  are  seen  at  the  present  day,  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  merchandise.”  (Wilson’s  Lands  of  Bible,  I.,  119.) 

Saadia  (the  Arabic  translator  of  the  Bible),  for  the  term  “treasure  cities,”  gives 
“cities,  magazines.”  So,  again,  does  Eli  Smith  in  the  modern  Arabic  version. 

1 Exod.  1 : 11.  * Exod.  12 : 37 ; Num.  33 : 3. 

3 “ Zoan  ” is  the  name  given  in  the  Hebrew  text  (Num.  13 : 22 ; Psa.  78 : 12,  43 ; 
Isa  19:  11,13;  30:  4;  Ezek.  30:  14).  It  differs  hut  slightly  from  that  given  in  the 
Egyptian  records.  (See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  383 ; Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai, 
p.  512  /. ; Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  p.  80  /.) 

4 “Tanis”  (T avis),  is  the  Greek  form  and  it  appears  in  the  Septuagint. 

5  “ S&n  ” is  the  modern  Arabic  name. 

6  See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  97-103;  383-386;  Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  pp. 
81-84.  Ebers  thinks  (see  his  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  pp.  512-518)  that  there  were  two 
cities  bearing  that  name ; one  at  the  site  of  Zoan,  and  the  other  in  the  region  of  the 
laud  of  Goshen. 

7  Gen.  46 : 28-34 ; 47 : 1-6,  27. 


8 Gen.  47 : 11. 


NO  CITIES  ON  THE  ROUTE. 


381 


Rameses.  But  if,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  they  came  to  Egypt 
under  a Hykshos  Pharaoh,  whose  court  was  at  Tanis,1  or  at  Mem- 
phis,2 or  at  Avaris,3  they  certainly  were  not  in  close  proximity  to 
that  capital  city  (whichever  city  it  was)  ; for  they  merely  settled  in 
“ the  land  of  Rameses  ” with  a particular  view  to  their  separation 
from  the  Egyptian  capital  and  court  of  then.4 

At  the  time  of  the  conferences  of  Moses  with  Pharaoh,  over  the 
release  of  the  Israelites  from  bondage,  when  the  Lord  “ wrought 
his  signs  in  Egypt,  and  his  wonders  in  the  field  of  Zoan,”5  it  is 
evident  that  “ the  land  of  Rameses,”  in  Goshen,  where  the 
Israelites  had  their  dwelling,  was  quite  distinct  and  apart  from  the 
capital  city  of  Lower  Egypt ; and  that  even  Moses  himself  was  not 
then  a dweller  near  the  court  of  Pharaoh.  When  the  plague  of 
hail  came,  “ and  the  hail  smote  throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt 
all  that  was  in  the  field,  both  man  and  beast,”  then  “ in  the  land 
of  Goshen,  where  the  children  of  Israel  were,  was  there  no  hail.”6 
And  this  was  but  a repetition  of  the  division  shown  between 
Goshen  and  the  rest  of  Egypt  in  the  plague  of  flies.7  So,  again, 
when  “ there  was  a thick  darkness  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt  three 
days,”  u all  the  children  of  Israel  had  light  in  their  dwellings  ” — 
in  Goshen.8  And  during  all  the  period  of  those  plagues,  Moses 
and  Aaron  went  back  and  forth  between  the  city  of  Pharaoh’s 
abode  and  the  homes  of  the  Israelites,  as  if  the  two  places  were  at 
a considerable  distance  apart.  The  Lord’s  command  came  more 
than  once  to  Moses,  in  words  that  in  Oriental  speech  are  indicative 


1 Bobinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  55 ; Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  300-302,  306 ; Lenormant 
and  Chevallier’s  Anc.  Hist  of  the  East,  I.,  197,  223 ; Philip  Smith’s  Anc.  Hist,  of  the 
East,  p.  98 ; Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  122,  etc. 

2 Wilson’s  Lands  of  the  Bible,  I.,  116  ff.;  Birch’s  Egypt,  p.  75;  Palmer’s  Des.  of 
Exod.,  I.,  270,  etc.;  Sharpe,  in  Bartlett’s  Forty  Days,  p.  25  f. 

3 Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  p.  71  f. ; Birch’s  Egypt,  p.  75 ; Sharpe’s  Hist,  of  Egypt, 

I.,  30  /.,  etc. 

* Gen.  46  : 28. 

6 Exod.  9 : 26. 


7 Exod.  8 : 22. 


5 Psa.  78 : 43. 

8 Exod.  10 : 21-23. 


382 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


of  a start  for  a journey  : “ Rise  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  stand 
before  Pharaoh.” 1 And  when  Moses  returned  from  the  mission  on 
which  he  had  thus  been  sent,  “ Moses  went  out  of  the  city  from 
Pharaoh.” 2 

A search  for  the  site  of  the  city  of  Raineses  is  a very  laudable 
pursuit ; and  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  city  of  Rameses  was  the 
capital  city  of  the  Pharaohs  in  the  days  of  the  exodus,  and  if  its 
site  could  be  established  incontrovertibly, — then  at  least  it  would  be 
an  established  and  an  incontrovertible  fact,  that  there  was  the  sure 
site  of  one  place  in  Lower  Egypt  from  which  the  Israelites  did  not 
start.  When  the  children  of  Israel  came  into  Egypt,  they  settled 
down  “ in  the  land  of  Rameses,”  which  was  in,  or  which  was, 
“ the  land  of  Goshen.”  When  they  started  out  of  Egypt,  “ the 
children  of  Israel  removed  from  Rameses  ” — u the  land  of 
Rameses,”  which  was  in,  or  which  was,  “ the  land  of  Goshen.” 
The  land  of  Goshen  may  have  had  the  new  treasure-city  (or  grain 
magazine)  of  Raamses,  or  of  Rameses,  on  its  border ; but  that  city 
was  not  an  abode  of  the  Israelites ; nor  was  it  a starting  point  of 
their  exodus.  Their  starting  point  was  “ the  land,”  or  the  district, 
“ of  Rameses.” 

The  land  of  Goshen,  in  which,  or  which  was,  the  land  of  Rameses, 
is  fairly  well  identified.  The  various  references  to  it  in  the  Bible 
text  and  on  the  Egyptian  monuments,  as  well  as  later  historical  data,3 

1  Exod.  8 : 20 ; 9 : 13.  The  Hebrew  term  employed  here  (232?,  shakham,  to  “put 
on  the  shoulder  ”)  is  an  Oriental  phrase  applied  to  getting  ready  for  a caravan  start. 
“ It  seems  to  signify,  primarily,  to  load  up  camels  and  other  beasts  of  burden,  which 
among  the  nomades  is  done  very  early  in  the  morning ; hence  ‘ to  set  off  early.’  ” 
(Gesenius’s  Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.  “shakham.”)  See  also  Fiirst’s  Heb.  und  Chald.  Worterb. : 
“ to  load  up.”  Compare  the  Bible  uses  of  this  word  as  noted  in  Young’s  Analyt. 
Concord.:  Gen.  22:  3;  28:  18;  31:  55;  Num.  14:  40;  Josh.  3:  1,  etc. 

2  Exod.  6:  20. 

3  See  Robinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  I.,  51-53;  Wilson’s  Lands  of  the  Bible,  I.,  117; 
Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  349,  369,  443 ; Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  pp.  500-513  ; 
Burtlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  pp.  129-137  ; Poole’s  Cities  of  Egypt,  pp.  92-96. 


NO  CITIES  ON  THE  ROUTE. 


383 


all  go  to  fix  it  as  including  the  Wady  Toomilat1  (which  sweeps 
from  above  Cairo,  northerly  and  easterly  toward  Lakes  Timsah 
and  Ballah),  together  with  more  or  less  of  the  country  on  either 
side  of  that  wady.  Ebers2  outlines  this  region  graphically, 
when  he  says  : “ As  far  as  it  is  possible  to  fix  its  ancient  limitations, 
it  exhibits  the  form  of  a cornucopia,  bounded  toward  the  east,  at  the 
widest  end  or  opening  of  the  cornucopia,  by  the  wTater-way  [the  series 
of  lakes  through  which  runs  the  Suez  Canal]  that  divides  Africa  from 
Asia.  The  fresh -water  canal  which  already  existed  at  the  time  of 
the  sojourn  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  and  which  was  reopened  by  M.  de 
Lesseps,  washes  its  southern  frontier  : the  lake  of  Menzaleh  lies  to 
the  north  of  it,  and  to  the  west  the  Taniticarm  of  the  Nile — which 
has  now  dwindled  to  a narrow  water  course.”  There  are  many  who 
would  not  carry  the  Goshen  district  west  of  the  Pelusiac  arm  of  the 
Nile,  but  who  would  extend  it  southward  somewhat  below  the  fresh- 
water canal.  Apart  from  these  differences,  however,  the  boundaries 
indicated  by  Ebers  would  be  generally  accepted  among  scholars. 

It  was  from  their  many  homes  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  this 
land  of  Rameses-Goshen,  that  the  Israelites  took  their  hurried 
start  after  that  first  passover  night,  which  inaugurated  their  exodus. 
“ And  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Succoth, 
about  six  hundred  thousand  on  foot  that  were  men,  beside  children. 
And  a mixed  multitude  went  up  also  with  them  ; and  flocks  and 
herds,  even  very  much  cattle.” 3 It  was  from  no  single  city  that 
such  a host  as  that  went  out.  Nor  did  they  seek  a city  as  a place 
of  rendezvous.  Any  research  which  looks  to  identifying  the  re- 

1 11  The  general  situation  of  Goshen  is  conceded.  And  whatever  question  may  exist 
as  to  its  extent,  it  is  agreed  that  the  Wady  Tumilat  was  a part  of  it;  was,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Schleiden,  ‘ the  kernel  of  it.’  We  may  also  consider  it  an  admitted  fact 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  testimony  of  Aristotle,  Strabo  and  Pliny,  corroborated 
by  the  evidence  of  ancient  remains,  and  accepted  by  such  writers  as  Bunsen, 
Brugsch,  Wilkinson  and  Mariette,  the  canal  from  the  Nile  ran  along  that  wady.” 
(Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  156.) 

2 Piet.  Egypt.,  I.,  87/ 


3 Exod.  12 : 37-38. 


384 


EADESH-BARNEA. 


mains  of  some  city  starting-point,  or  of  some  hotel  stopping-place, 
of  the  Israelites  in  their  exodus,  will  be  misdirected  effort  in  its 
immediate  object.  Yet  there  has  been  a great  deal  of  fruitless  dis- 
cussion over  the  possibilities  and  the  results  of  such  research.1 

“ And  the  children  of  Israel  removed  from  Rameses,  and  pitched 
in  Succoth.” 2 It  would  appear  that  up  to  this  time  there  had  been 
no  assembling  of  this  people  for  a common  movement.  They  were 
not  brought  together  for  a start  from  the  land  of  Rameses-Goshen. 
In  the  evening  each  family  in  its  own  home  had  eaten  of  the  pass- 
over  meal.  During  the  night  an  order  had  been  issued  for  a 
hurried  start  on  the  long- planned  pilgrimage.  “ On  the  morrow 
after  the  passover  the  children  of  Israel  went  out  with  a high  hand 
in  the  sight  of  all  the  Egyptians.” 6 Moving  out  from  their  various 
homes  in  the  land  of  Rameses-Goshen,  the  Israelites  must  first  find 
their  way  to  a common  rendezvous,  in  order  to  their  united  move- 
ment, as  one  people,  from  Egypt  into  the  wilderness  beyond. 
That  place  of  their  rendezvous  was  Succoth. 


9.  TAKING  TIME  AND  BAKHSHEESH. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  all  the  Israelites  reached 
Succoth  on  the  day  of  their  hurried  start  from  their  homes  in 
Rameses-Goshen.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  text  that  requires 
such  a supposition  ; and  there  is  much  in  the  nature  of  the  case  to 


1 Since  the  above  was  written,  a striking  illustration  of  this  mode  of  treating  the 
exodus  of  the  Israelites  as  if  it  were  the  journey  of  a commercial  traveler,  is  given 
in  Mr.  Stanley  Lane-Poole’s  sketch  of  ‘‘  The  Discovery  of  Pithom-Succoth,”  in  the 
“ British  Quarterly  Review  ” (for  July,  1883) : “ I have  not  only  walked  within  the 
very  rooms  which  the  Israelites  built,  but  I have  slept  a night  where  the  Israelites 
slept  a night  when  Moses  led  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.”  Almost  anywhere 
along  the  route  from  the  Delta  to  Sinai,  a man  would  have  to  sleep  by  day  and  travel 
by  night,  if  he  would  avoid  sleeping  a night  where  some  of  the  Israelites  slept  a 
night  when  Moses  led  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt. 

2 Num.  33 : 5. 


3 Num.  33 : 3. 


TAKING  TIME  AND  BAKHSHEESH. 


885 


forbid  it.  The  start  was  made  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  new 
year  of.  the  Israelites.1  “On  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second 
month  after  their  departing  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  ” 2 they  came  to 
“the  Wilderness  of  Sin,”  which  was  their  eighth  station  beyond 
Rameses-Goshen.  At  the  briefest,  the  intervening  period  was  a 
full  month;3  which  had  been  spent  at  or  between  the  stations 
named.  This  gives  an  average  of  say  four  days  to  each  stage. 
From  the  intimations  of  the  time  occupied  between  the  Red  Sea 
and  Elim,4  it  might  even  be  supposed  that  ten  days  would  be  an 
ample  period  for  the  movement  and  rest  on  that  side  of  the  Egyp- 
tian border ; leaving  twenty  days  between  the  hurried  start  of  the 
Israelites  from  their  homes,  and  their  midnight  crossing  of  the 
Red  Sea.5  This  would  easily  allow  several  days  for  the  gathering 
at  the  Succoth  rendezvous. 

Uncalled-for  barriers  to  an  understanding  of  the  Bible  narrative 
have  been  raised,  by  a popular  belief  that  all  the  preparations  of 
the  Israelites  for  their  departure  out  of  Egypt  had  to  be  made 
during  the  passover  night,  and  that  the  first  stage  of  their  journey 
was  passed  before  the  morning  of  the  coming  day.  Nothing  of 
that  sort  can  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  Bible  text. 

1 Comp.  Exod.  12 : 1-20,  29-39 ; Num.  33 : 3.  2 Exod.  16  : 1. 

3  This  would  seem,  on  the  face  of  it,  to  be  the  plain  meaning  of  the  text.  They 
went  out  from  Rameses  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  first  month  ; they  came  to  Sin  on 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month.  So  think  “Rashi”  (’ al  ha-  Torah) ; Bush  ( Notes 
on  Exod?) ; Murphy  {Com.  on  Exodus);  all  in  loco;  Kurtz  {Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  III., 
12)  and  others.  But  Canon  Cook  {Speaker's  Com.  in  loco)  speaks  of  the  time  as 
“ two  months  and  a half,”  and  again  as  “six  weeks,”  and  Geikie  { Hours  with  the 

Bible,  II.,  176)  seems  to  think  that  the  computation  of  time  at  Elim  dates  from  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  that  ten  weeks  or  more  may  have  elapsed  after  the  pass- 
over-night,  before  Pharaoh  started  in  pursuit  of  the  Hebrews. 

4  Comp.  Exod.  15  : 22-27 ; Num.  33  : 8-10. 

5  “According  to  Jewish  tradition,  the  passage  through  the  sea  and  the  song  of 
Moses  belong  to  the  seventh  day  after  the  celebration  of  the  passover  in  Egypt.  We 
have  no  decisive  evidence  to  the  contrary  ; at  the  same  time  it  cannot  be.  positively 
established  from  the  original  narrative.”  (Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  II.,  307.) 

25 


386 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


While  Moses  was  yet  in  the  wilderness  of  Horeb,  the  whole 
plan  of  the  wonders  in  Egypt,  with  their  sure  result,  was . foretold 
to  him,  and  he  was  directed  to  lay  it  all  before  the  elders  of  his 
people.1  Then  it  was,  also,  that  the  instructions  were  issued,  that 
the  Israelites  in  making  ready  for  their  leaving  Egypt  should  ask 
the  customary  gifts2  (“  bakhsheesh”  such  gifts  are  called  in  the 
East  to-day  3)  from  those  whom  they  had  served,  and  among  whom 
they  had  lived ; now  that  they  were  to  leave  that  land  and  go  out 
on  a sacred  pilgrimage,  for  an  observance  of  a sacred  feast.4 

i  Exod.  3:  1-22. 

2  At  the  three  days’  festival  which  follows  Ramadan,  the  month  of  fasting,  in 
modern  Egypt,  as  in  other  Muhammadan  countries,  “servants  and  other  dependents 
receive  presents  of  new  articles  of  clothing  from  their  masters  or  patrons ; and  the 
servant  receives  presents  of  small  sums  of  money  from  his  master’s  friends,  whom,  if 
they  do  not  visit  his  master,  he  goes  to  congratulate ; as  well  as  from  any  former 
master.”  (Lane’s  Thousand  and  One  Nights,  p.  62/.)  A Turkish  writer  (Oscanvan, 
in  The  Sultan  and  His  People,  p.  86/.)  speaks  of  the  generous  giving  to  the  poorer 
pilgrims  who  are  starting  for  Mekkeh : “But  few  can  withhold  a tribute.  The  miser 
opens  his  hoards,  and  the  widow  adds  her  slender  mite  ; the  grandee  and  the  slave, 
one  and  all,  gladly  answer  the  appeal  of  their  fellows,”  at  such  a time.  A person 
coming  back  from  a pilgrimage  may  bring  presents.  “ When  a person  arrives  from 
a foreign  country,  he  generally  brings  some  articles  of  the  produce  or  merchandise  of 
the  country  as  presents  to  his  friends.  Thus,  pilgrims  returning  from  the  holy  places 
bring  water  of  Zemzem,  dust  from  the  prophet’s  tomb,  etc.,  for  this  purpose.”  ( Thou- 
sand and  One  Nights  I.,  23.)  But  departing  guests  would  expect  to  receive  gifts 
rather  than  to  give  them  (See  Pierotti’s  Customs  and  Traditions  of  Pal.,  p.  89). 
This,  although  the  cry  for  bakhsheesh  is  now  often  raised  against  those  who  go  as 
well  as  against  those  who  come. 

3 This  term,  in  one  form  or  another,  with  the  uniform  idea  of  a present  or  gift,  is 
in  use  from  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar  to  India. 

4 “Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  hold  a feast  [literally,  a khag  (JH),  or  a hajj] 
unto  me  in  the  wilderness  ” (Exod.  5 : 1),  was  the  first  message  of  God  to  Pharaoh  at 
the  hand  of  Moses.  The  hajj  of  the  East  means  more  than  a mere  pilgrimage  jour- 
ney. From  time  immemorial  it  has  included  the  idea  of  circumambulatory  movements 
in  some  way,  as  the  Hebrew  word  here  used  would  indicate.  (See  Gesenius  and 
Fiirst,  s.  v.)  Making  a sevenfold  circuit  of  the  sacred  Ka’aba  at  Mekkeh,  and 
making  a similar  circuit  of  the  sacred  sepulchre  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre at  Jerusalem,  are  but  illustrations  of  the  well-nigh  universal  idea.  It  is  illus- 


TAKING  TIME  AND  BAKHSHEESH. 


387 


In  the  Hebrew,  there  is  no  necessary  suggestion  of  any  “ bor- 
rowing ” from  the  Egyptians,  as  if  with  a proposal  to  return  the 
things  received.  The  term  employed  means  “ ask,” 1 rather  than 
“ borrow.”  It  evidently  refers  to  the  custom,  which  is  fresh 
now  as  always  in  the  unchangeable  East,  of  soliciting  a gift  on  the 
eve  of  a departure,  or  on  the  closing  of  any  term  of  service  of  any 
sort  whatsoever.2  That  this  was  the  custom  in  that  day,  as  it  is  now, 

trated  again  in  the  primitive  ceremony  at  the  annual  feast,  or  hajj,  at  the  ancient  tomb 
of  Neby-Saleh,  near  Mount  Sinai  (see  Palmer’s  Des.  of  Exod.,  I.,  50/.,  262-264) ; 
also  in  the  common  method  of  worship  at  the  chapel-tomb  of  any  Arab  saint  (see 
Lane’s  Thousand  and  One  Nights,  I.,  215).  The  circuit  by  which  the  Israelites  were 
led  in  all  their  pilgrimage, — until  it  ended  by  their  sevenfold  circuit  of  the  city  of 
Jericho  (Josh.  6 : 2-6,  20),  and  then  moved  every  man  straight  before  him  into  the 
first  secured  stronghold  of  their  new  inheritance, — was  longer  and  stranger  than  they 
had  dreamed  of. 

1 Shaal  “To  ask  for  either  by  way  of  demand  or  entreaty.”  (Gesenius’s 

Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.)  This  is  precisely  the  idea  of  “bakhsheesh.” 

2 “In  Palestine  men  are  born,  live  and  die,  to  the  one  tune  ‘bakhshish,  bakh- 
shish,’” says  Pierotti  ( Customs  and  Traditions  of  Pal.,  p.  88  ff.).  “It  may  perhaps 
be  said,”  he  adds,  “that  the  custom  exists  generally  in  the  East,  and  this  is  true; 
but  it  is  nowhere  so  rampant  and  so  unreasonable  as  in  Palestine.”  Yet  he  who 
enters  the  East  at  Egypt  will  be  likely  to  think  that  there  is  the  region  above  all 
others,  where  the  asking  of  gifts  (for  the  call  for  bakhsheesh  is  distinct  from  begging) 
is  the  surest  accompaniment  of  meeting  and  of  parting.  Burton  says  ( Pilgrimage  to 
El  Medinah,  etc.,  p.  121):  “‘Bakhshish’  was  the  last  as  well  as  the  first  odious 
sound  I heard  in  Egypt.”  And  Macgregor,  ( Rob  Roy  on  the  Jordan,  p.  20),  who 
entered  the  East  at  Egypt  and  went  thence  to  Palestine,  has  re-phrased  and  extended 
this  statement  in  his  testimony:  “‘Backshish!  ’ was  the  first  cry  I heard  in  the  East; 
and  the  last  I heard  there,  after  wandering  long,  was  ‘ Backshish ! ’ ” As  to  the  cor- 
respondence of  this  custom  with  that  of  olden  time,  Pierotti  says  confidently,  “ The 
Arabs  only  follow  (though  carrying  to  excess)  the  practice  of  the  Hebrews  in  the 
matter  of  bakhshish.”  There  could  hardly  be  a better  illustration  of  the  extent  to 
which  this  asking  of  bakhsheesh  is  carried  throughout  the  East,  than  that  given  in 
the  experience  of  Burckhardt,  who  learned  so  much  of  the  ways  of  the  Arabs,  and 
who  told  it  so  well.  He  moved  among  them  as  one  of  them.  Wherever  he  went  he 
found  them  accustomed  to  ask  gifts  not  only  on  any  occasion  when  there  was  a show 
of  reason  for  it,  but  also  whenever  they  knew  that  a person  had  anything  worth  ask- 
ing for.  “An  article  of  dress,  or  of  equipment,  which  the  poorest  townsman  would  be 


388 


KA  DESII-BA  E NEA . 


is  indicated  in  many  Bible  references  to  the  giving  of  gifts ; 1 but 
more  explicitly  in  the  divine  command  to  the  Israelites  themselves 
not  to  forget  the  bakhsheesh  when  they  released  a servant  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sabbatical  year : “ And  when  thou  sendest  him  out  free 
from  thee,  thou  shalt  not  let  him  go  away  empty  : thou  shalt  fur- 
nish him  liberally  out  of  thy  flock,  and  out  of  thy  [threshing] 
floor,  and  out  of  thy  winepress : of  that  wherewith  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  blessed  thee  thou  shalt  give  unto  him.”  And,  as  if  the 
receiving  of  gifts  from  the  Egyptians  was  to  be  brought  to  mind 
by  this  observance  of  the  custom  which  was  in  that  instance  illus- 
trated, it  is  added  : “ And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a 
bondman  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  redeemed 

ashamed  to  wear,  is  still  a covetable  article  with  the  Bedouins,”  he  said.  “ They 
set  no  bounds  to  their  demands ; delicacy  is  unknown  among  them,  nor  have  they 
any  word  to  express  it.  If  indeed  one  persists  in  refusing,  they  never  take  the  thing 
by  force ; but  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  resist  their  eternal  supplications  and  com- 
pliments without  yielding  at  last.”  When  he  had  given  away  as  a present,  or  had 
exchanged  for  poorer  ones,  his  every  personal  ornament  or  attractive  article  of  dress, 
even  to  his  “leathern  girdle  and  shoes,”  and  had  cut  down  the  tube  of  his  tobacco 
pipe  “ from  two  yards  to  a span,”  in  response  to  the  incessant  calls  on  him  for  gifts, 
he  “expected  to  be  freed  from  all  further  demands;  ” but  he  was  mistaken.  “I  had 
forgotten,”  he  says,  “some  rags  torn  from  my  shirt,  which  were  tied  round  my 
ancles,  wounded  by  the  stirrups  which  I had  received  in  exchange  from  the  sheikh 
of  Kerak.  These  rags  happening  to  be  of  white  linen,  some  of  the  ladies  of  the 
Howeytat  thought  they  might  serve  to  make  a berkoa,  or  face  veil,  and  whenever  I 
stepped  out  of  the  tent  I found  myself  surrounded  by  half  a dozen  of  them,  begging 
for  the  rags.  In  vain  I represented  that  they  were  absolutely  necessary  to  me  in  the 
wounded  state  of  my  ancles:  their  answer  was,  ‘You  will  soon  reach  Cairo,  where 
you  may  get  as  much  linen  as  you  like.’  By  this  incessant  teasing  me,  they  at  last 
obtained  their  wishes.”  (Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syria,  pp.  399  /.,  438.)  Burckhardt 
would  not  have  stumbled  at  the  Bible  declaration,  that  the  Israelites  asked  bakh- 
sheesh from  their  old  neighbors  on  leaving  them  for  a religious  pilgrimage ; nor 
would  Bishop  Colenso  have  done  so,  if  he  had  lived  among  Orientals  instead  of 
among  South  Africans. 

i See  Gen.  12:  16;  20:  14,  16;  32:  13-15;  33:  11;  43:  11;  Judg.  3:  15-18;  1 Sam. 
9:  7;  17:  18;  25:  18,  19,  23-27;  2 Kings  5:  15,  16,  21-23,  26;  8:  8,  9;  16:  8;  20:  12; 
Ezek.  27:  15;  Matt.  2:  11. 


TAKING  TIME  AND  BAKHSHEESH. 


389 


thee : [and  you  received  bakhsheesh]  therefore  I command  thee 
this  thing  [of  giving  bakhsheesh  to  your  departing  servants]  to- 
day”1 

In  directing  the  request  for  bakhsheesh  from  the  Egyptians,  the 
Lord  added  a promise  that  he  would  give  his  people  “ favor  in  the 
sight  of  the  Egyptians  ” 2 so  that  the  gifts  received  should  be  large 
and  many  • so  numerous  and  valuable,  in  fact,  that  it  would  be  as 
though  they  had  taken  the  “ spoil”  of  the  Egyptians3  after  a 
victorious  battle ; such  a battle  for  example,  as  that  of  the  Israelites 
with  the  Midianites  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  when  among  the  “ spoils” 
given  into  the  Lord’s  treasury  were  “ jewels  of  gold,  chains,  and 
bracelets,  rings,  ear-rings,  and  tablets ; ” 4 or,  again,  the  battle  when 
Gideon  triumphed  over  the  Midianites,  “ and  the  weight  of  the  golden 
earrings  ” of  the  spoil  “ was  a thousand  and  seven  hundred  shekels 
of  gold  ; besides  ornaments,  and  collars,  and  purple  raiment  that 
was  on  the  kings  of  Midian,  and  besides  the  chains  that  were  about 
their  camels’  necks.” 5 

And  all  that  the  Lord  had  directed  and  promised  was  reported 
by  Moses  and  Aaron,  not  only  to  the  elders  but  to  the  people  gene- 
rally, on  the  first  coming  again  of  Moses  into  Egypt.  u And  the 
people  believed  : and  when  they  heard  that  the  Lord  had  visited 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  that  he  had  looked  upon  their  affliction, 
then  they  bowed  their  heads  and  worshipped.” 6 From  that  time 
forward  preparations  were  making  for  the  final  move. 

After  the  ninth  plague,  the  Israelites  were  told  that  the  tenth 
plague  would  be  followed  by  their  going  out  on  their  journey  un- 
molested.7 Instructions  were  renewed  for  the  asking  of  the  bakh- 
sheesh,8 and  doubtless  the  gifts  were  then  obtained.9  Ample  notice 

1 Deut.  15 : 13-15.  2 Exod.  3 : 21,  22.  3 Exod.  3 : 22. 

4 Nam.  31 : 7-12,  48-50.  5 Judg.  8 : 26.  6 Exod.  4 : 31. 

7 Exod.  11 : 1.  8 Exod.  11 : 2. 

9 Exod.  11 : 3.  The  subsequent  reference  to  this  asking  (Exod.  12  : 35,  36),  and  its 

results,  at  the  time  of  the  exodus,  is  to  be  understood  as  a mention  of  what  had  been 


390 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


was  given  in  advance  of  the  passover-night.1  The  Israelites  were 
to  have  all  things  in  readiness  for  an  immediate  move  on  the  mor- 
row after  that  night ; and  this  included  the  having  their  flocks  and 
herds  prepared  for  a start.  They  were  even  to  stand  at  their  pass- 
over-feast,  having  their  loins  girded  about  for  a march,  and  having 
sandals  on  their  feet  and  a staff  in  their  hand;  awaiting  perhaps  an 
agreed  signal  for  a movement  at  the  early  dawn. 

It  was  at  midnight  that  the  first-born  of  Egypt  were  smitten.2 
Not  until  after  that  were  Moses  and  Aaron  sent  for  by  the  king.3 
Then  followed  directions  for  the  exodus.4  A single  flashing  light, 
by  the  order  of  Moses  on  his  coming  out  from  the  city  of  the  king, 
or  a single  wave  of  a signal  banner  in  the  early  morning,  might 
have  been  sufficient  in  view  of  arrangements  already  made,5  to 
start  the  order  from  lookout  to  lookout  over  all  the  land  of 
Rameses-Goshen,6  and  to  set  the  mighty  multitude  in  motion,  to- 
ward the  appointed  rendezvous  at  Succoth. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  multiplication  of  difficulties  in  the 
Bible  narrative,  by  their  ingenious  manufacture,  the  exhibit  in 
this  line  by  Bishop  Colenso,  in  his  description  of  the  first  move 
of  the  Israelites,  is  really  worthy  of  reproduction  just  here;  for 
his  method  of  criticism  is  by  no  means  yet  out  of  date.  He  says  : 7 
“We  are  required  to  believe  that,  in  one  single  day,  the  order  to 

done.  The  Hebrew  language  has  no  such  division  of  tenses  as  the  English.  “ The 
children  of  Israel  did  according  to  the  word  of  Moses,”  is  only  a Hebrew  way  of 
saying,  “ the  children  of  Israel  had  done  according  to  the  word  of  Moses.” 

1 Exod.  12 : 1-6.  2 Exod.  12  : 29.  3 Exod.  12  : 30,  31.  4 Exod.  12:  31-33. 

3 Comp.  Exod.  4 : 29-31 ; 5 : 15  ; 6 : 13-25;  11 : 1-8 , 12  : 1-28. 

6 The  order  for  the  celebration  of  the  passover-feast  in  commemoration  of  the  exo- 
dus, was  announced,  year  by  year,  in  the  later  days  of  the  Hebrew  occupancy  of 
Canaan,  by  the  flashing  of  signal  lights,  first  on  the  brow  of  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
and  then  from  hill-top  to  hill-top  over  all  the  land  not  only  from  Dan  to  Beersheba, 
but  “far  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Palestine  to  those  of  the  dispersion  ‘beyond  the 
river.’  ” See,  on  this  point,  Edersheim’s  The  Temple , its  Ministry , etc.,  p.  170/. 

7 The  Pentateuch,  I.,  114/. 


TAKING  TIME  AND  BAKHSHEESH. 


391 


start  was  communicated  suddenly,  at  midnight,  to  every  single 
family  of  every  town  and  village,  throughout  a tract  of  country 
as  large  as  Hertfordshire,  but  ten  times  as  thickly  peopled; — 
that  in  obedience  to  such  order,  having  first  ‘ borrowed ’ very 
largely  from  their  Egyptian  neighbors  in  all  directions  (though,  if 
we  are  to  suppose  Egyptians  occupying  the  same  territory  with 
the  Hebrews,  the  extent  of  it  must  be  very  much  increased),  they 
then  came  in  from  all  parts  of  Goshen  to  Rameses,  bringing  with 
them  the  sick  and  infirm,  the  young  and  the  aged ; — further,  that, 
since  receiving  the  summons  they  had  sent  out  to  gather  in  all 
their  flocks  and  herds,  spread  over  so  wide  a district,  and  had 
driven  them  also  to  Rameses ; — and,  lastly,  that  having  done  all 
this,  since  they  were  roused  at  midnight,  they  were  started  again 
from  Rameses  that  very  same  day,  and  marched  on  to  Succoth, 
not  leaving  a single  sick  or  infirm  person,  a single  woman  in  child- 
birth, or  even  a ‘ single  hoof’  (Exod.  10:  26)  behind  them ! This 
is,  undoubtedly,  what  the  story  in  the  book  of  Exodus  requires  us 
to  believe.  (Exod.  12:  31-41,  51).” 

Yet  there  is  hardly  a single  statement  in  that  extended  descrip- 
tion which  has  any  basis  in  either  the  letter  or  the  general  tenor  of 
the  Bible  narrative.  And  that  is  a fair  example  of  the  difficulties 
in  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  which  Bishop  Colenso  delib- 
erately, and,  as  it  is  claimed,  conscientiously,  put  before  the 
public  as  a source  of  perplexity  to  him  and  his  Zulu  flock.  Nor 
is  Bishop  Colenso  alone  as  a critic  in  this  sort  of  misrepresenting 
the  Bible  narrative,  as  a preliminary  to  claiming  its  unreason- 
ableness at  the  point  where  it  is  misrepresented. 

In  no  instance  is  it  said  that  a day’s  journey  took  the  Israelites 
from  one  station,  or  formal  encampment,  to  the  next ; if  we  ex- 
cept the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  during  a single  night.1  It  is  dis- 

1 The  strange  objection  made  by  Colenso,  and  others  of  his  stamp,  to  admitting 
the  reasonable  probability  of  rest-days  between  or  at  stations  is  : “ Nothing  whatever 


392 


KADESH-BAENEA. 


tinctly  declared  that  it  was  “on  the  morrow”  after  the  passover, 
that  they  began  their  hurried  move  toward  Succoth.  It  is  by  no 
means  probable,  nor  have  we  any  call  from  the  text  itself  to  sup- 
pose, that  every  family  from  the  remoter  portions  of  the  land  of 
Rameses-Goshen  reached  the  common  rendezvous  on  the  day  of 
their  setting  out.  But  sooner  or  later,  all  the  Israelites,  with  all 
the  “mixed  multitude”  of  Semitic  and  Egyptian  refugees  which 
accompanied  them,  were  together  at  Succoth. 


10.  THE  PLACE  OF  RENDEZVOUS. 

Succoth 1 is  a Hebrew  word ; not  an  Egyptian  one.2  It  means 
“ booths  ” or  “ tents,” 3 and  so  a “ place  of  booths,”  or  “ a place  of 
tents.” 4 It  is  a term  that  might  naturally  be  applied  to  a common 
camping-ground,  to  a region  where  nomads,  or  tenters,  were  in  the 
habit  of  pitching  their  tents.  There  is  such  a locality,  for  ex- 
ample, a short  distance  outside  of  Cairo — at  Birket  el-Hajj5 — 

is  said  or  implied  about  these  ‘ days  of  rest 1 in  the  Scripture.  There  would  surely 
have  been  some  reference  made  to  them,  if  they  really  occurred.”  (Colenso’s  The 
Pent.,  p.  116.)  Imagine  this  claim  applied  to  every  Bible  narrative.  For  example : 
Jacob  slept  at  Bethel  one  night.  His  next  recorded  stop  is  in  Haran.  (Gen.  28 : 
18,  19;  29':  1-4.)  Of  course  he  made  the  intervening  “journey”  in  a day! 

1  Sukkah  (rGp);  in  the  plural,  Suhkotli  (fiOp). 

2  Even  of  the  Egyptian  word  which  Brugsch  would  identify  with  Succoth,  he  says  : 
“The  meaning  . . . can  be  established  only  by  help  of  the  Semitic”  {Hist,  oj 
Egypt,  I.,  233;  II.,  373).  Ebers  {Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  520)  thinks  he  sees  in  it  a 
likeness  to  another  Egyptian  term.  As  the  word  is  found  in  a Hebrew  record,  and 
has  a well-defined  Hebrew  meaning,  it  is  but  fair  to  accept  that  meaning  as  the  in- 
tended one,  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary.  Any  corroboration  or  corre- 
spondence of  the  Hebrew  meaning  in  the  Egyptian  records  is,  of  course,  legitimate. 

3  Comp.  2 Sam.  11 : 11 ; 22 : 12  ; 1 Kings  20 : 12 ; Psa.  31 : 20. 

4 See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v.  It  is  a frequent  thing  in  the  Hebrew,  to  apply  a 
common  noun  to  a locality,  with  the  added  idea  of  “ the  place  of.”  Thus,  e.  g., 
“ Gilgal,”  “Rolling”;  the  “Place  of  Rolling”  (Josh.  5 : 9-10). 

5 “Birkett  el-Hajj,  or  the  Pilgrim’s  Lake,  where  the  last  stragglers  can  join  the 


THE  PLACE  OF  RENDEZVOUS. 


393 


where  the  great  Hajj  caravan  for  Mekkeh  makes  its  final  rendezvous 
for  a start  every  year.  There  is  another  such  common  camping- 
ground  across  the  Red  Sea  southeasterly  from  Suez,  where  the  pil- 
grims from  the  East  are  tediously  quarantined.  Again  there  is  an- 
other, near  Castle  Nakhl,  where  every  caravan  from  the  east  or  west 
camps  for  a longer  or  shorter  time.  There  was  evidently  a region 
of  this  sort  between  the  line  of  lakes  which  formed  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  land  of  Goshen  (or  perhaps  from  a little  west  of 
that  line,  and  the  Great  Wall  (the  Khetam-Etham-Shur),  which 
lay  between  Lower  Egypt  and  the  Wilderness.1  At  that  Succoth, 
the  Israelites  probably  made  their  rendezvous. 

It  is  clear  from  the  Egyptian  records,2  that  the  Shasoo,  or  Bed'- 
ween,  or  nomads  of  the  desert,  were  in  the  habit  of  finding  their 
way  into  the  Delta,  and  pitohing  their  tents  inside  the  Great  Wall. 
A reference  has  already  been  made 3 to  an  officials  report  in  the 
days  of  Meneptah  II.,  telling  of  the  admission  of  Edomitish 
Shasoo  through  the  Great  Wall  into  the  region  of  “the  lakes  of 
the  city  Pi-tum  of  Mineptah-Hotephima,  which  are  situated  in 
the  land  of  Thuku,  in  order  to  feed  themselves  and  to  feed  their 
herds  on  the  possessions  of  Pharaoh.”4  For  the  region  thus  oc- 
cupied by  the  Shasoo-tenters,  between  the  Great  Wall  and  the 
lakes  (and  more  or  less  to  the  west  of  the  lakes)  on  the  eastern 
borders  of  the  Delta,  the  term  “ Succoth  ” would  be  a most 
natural  designation ; and  its  location  corresponds  with  the  in- 
caravan, where  the  skins  are  refilled  with  water,  and  the  leader  at  last  gives  the  defi- 
nite signal  for  a final  start  eastwards,  across  the  sandy  wastes  of  the  Arabian  desert  ” 
(Ebers’s  Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  130). 

1  Niebuhr  (Beschreibung  von  Arabien,  p.  358)  suggests  that  the  Succoth-rendezvous 
of  the  Israelites  was  Birket  el-Hajj.  This  shows  his  understanding  of  the  nature  of 
their  camping-place ; but  from  the  known  limits  of  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  the 
direction  of  the  Israelites’  route,  as  indicated  in  the  text,  it  is  evident  that  Succoth 
must  have  been  well  eastward  of  Birket  el-Hajj. 

2  See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  247  f. ; II.,  132/. 

3  See  page  329,  supra.  4 Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  133. 


394 


KADESH-BARNEA . 


dications  in  the  Bible  text  of  the  Succoth-rendezvous  of  the 
Israelites. 

Brugsch  argues  strongly  for  the  correspondence  of  the  Egyptian 
“ Thuku,”  or  Thukoo  (as  mentioned  in  the  above  named  record), 
with  the  Hebrew  “ Succoth.”  1 In  his  opinion,  the  Egyptian  word, 
like  the  Hebrew  one,  meant  “tent,”  or  “tent-camp,”  and  was 
applied  to  a district  on  the  pastures  of  which  “the  wandering 
Bedouins  of  the  eastern  deserts  pitched  their  tents  to  procure 
necessary  food  for  their  cattle.”  Ebers,  however,2  would  derive  the 
name  Succoth  from  the  hieroglyphic  “ Sekhet  ” (which  has  the 
meaning  of  “ a field  ”) ; a place  which  he  thinks  was  near  Lake 
Timsah.  But  this  meaning  does  not  materially  differ  from  the 
other ; nor  is  the  probable  location  changed  by  its  adoption.  It 
merely  gives  a “ campus  ” for  a “ camping-place.” 

As  to  the  location  of  the  Egyptian  Thukoo,  it  is  shown  by  the 
monuments,  that  Pi-tum  (the  House  of  [the  god]  Turn),  which 
probably  was  the  Pithom  of  the  Bible  text — was  the  chief  city  of 
the  district  of  Thukoo ; that  that  city  was  situated  “ at  the  entrance 
of  the  East ; ” 3 and  that  it  was  near  the  lakes 4 of  the  eastern 
border.  This  is  just  where  all  indications  would  tend  to  fix  the 
location  of  Succoth,  in  the  narrative  of  the  exodus  ; and  it  is  where 
Ebers  finds  his  Sekhet.  As  has  been  shown,5  the  land  of  Bameses- 
Goshen  was  in  the  general  shape  of  a cornucopia,  with  its  mouth, 
or  opening,  by  t^e  line  of  lakes  between  the  Bed  Sea  and  the 
Mediterranean.  Out  from  that  Bameses-Goshen  cornucopia,  the 
children  of  Israel  poured  forth  in  their  flight,  into  the  Succoth,  or 
common  Tenting-place,  at  the  entrance  of  the  East  along  those 
lakes. 

Explorations  in  the  Delta,  made  since  this  writing  was  begun, 

1 Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  233  /. ; II.,  373,  421  ff.  2 Gosen  zum  Sinai , pp.  510  520. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  510  ; also  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I.,  233/. 

4 See  page  393,  supra.  5 See  page  383,  supra. 


THE  FIRST  UNITED  MOVE. 


395 


have  seemed  to  identify  the  site  of  Pi-tum,  or  Pithom,  at  Tell  el- 
Maskhootah,1  a short  distance  west  of  Lake  Timsah.  This  corres- 
ponds very  well  with  all  the  hints  of  both  the  Hebrew  and  Egyp- 
tian texts,  toward  locating  a chief  city  of  Succoth ; if  it  only  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  the  temple- city,  with  its  guarded  grain-maga- 
zines, of  an  entire  border  district,  is  not  the  district  itself,  nor  yet, 
of  necessity,  in  the  centre  of  that  district.  Such  a city  would  na- 
turally be  on  the  inner  border  of  the  district,  as  the  safer  location.2 
Pi-tum,  or  Pithom,  was  not  Thukoo,  or  Succoth ; but  Pi-tum,  or 
Pithom,  seems  to  have  been  the  chief  city  of  Thukoo,  or  Succoth, 
and  as  such  it  might  well  have  been  located  at  the  westernmost 
stretch  of  Thukoo  or  Succoth — between  the  Shasoo-tenters  and  the 
Plebrew-fellaheen.  There  would  seem  to  be  the  place  for  the 
fortified  granary  of  the  fertile  district  sweeping  eastward  from 
Goshen.  And  all  this  goes  to  show,  that  Succoth  was  a well-known 
Tenting-field,  along  the  line  of  lakes  of  which  Lake  Timsah  is  a 
centre.3 


11.  THE  FIRST  UNITED  MOVE. 

And  this  would  seem  to  make  clear  the  region  of  the  starting 
point,  and  the  region  of  the  first  gathering  place,  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  at  the  time  of  their  exodus.  “ And  the  children  of 
Israel  journeyed  from  [the  land  of]  Rameses  to  [their  rendezvous 

1 See  “ The  Discovery  of  Pithom-Succoth,”  in  Brit.  Quart.  Rev.,  for  July,  1883. 

2 The  chief  city  of  the  district  of  Goshen  (Qosem,  or  Pa-qosem)  seems  to  have  been 
at  the  western  stretch  of  that  district.  (See  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  349,  369; 
also  Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  519  /.) 

3 In  incidental  proof  of  the  error  of  Brugsch,  in  his  locating  of  Pithom  and  Succoth 
(near  the  borders  of  Lake  Menzaleh)  is  his  own  use  of  the  Egyptian  scribe’s  report 
of  the  pursuit  of  fugitives  toward  the  desert.  That  scribe  reached  the  fortress  of 
Thukoo  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  month,  and  in  zealous  haste  he  reached  Khetam,  or 
the  Great  Wall,  on  the  twelfth  day.  Yet  Brugsch  insists,  in  the  face  of  this,  that 
Khetam  (Etham)  and  Thukoo  (Succoth)  are  only  one  day’s  caravan  march  apart. 
(Comp.  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  387,  389,  390.) 


396 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


at]  Succoth.” 1 And  when  they  had  all  gathered  at  that  Tenting- 
place  near  the  lakes,  and  were  finally  ready  for  their  pilgrimage 
“they  took  their  journey  from  Succotli,  and  encamped  in2  Etham 
[that  is,  inside,  or  within,  the  Great  Wall,  which  is],  in 2 [or,  at] 
the  edge  of  the  wilderness.” 3 And  now  they  were  at  the  ex- 
tremest  limit  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  with  only  the  frowning  Wall 
between  them  and  the  forbidding  desert. 

They  had  left  their  homes  with  the  promise  of  being  led  toward 
Canaan.4  A three-days  journey  into,  or  across,  the  desert  was  the 
length  of  the  proposed  stretch  before  them,  after  they  should  once 
be  fairly  outside  the  Great  Wall  which  bounded  the  wilderness.5 
With  this  in  their  minds,  their  natural  course  would  be  out  from 
Rameses-Goshen  into  Succoth,  and  up  from  Succoth  toward  the 
northernmost  road  of  Egypt,  the  directest  and  shortest  road  into 
Canaan;  the  “Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,”  as  that 
road  was  called.6  As  they  had  received  the  royal  permission  to 
journey  into  the  wilderness7  beyond  the  Great  Wall,  they  were 
doubtless  supplied  with  the  needful  authority  to  pass  the  guards  at 
the  gate,  or  sally-port,  of  the  frontier  fortifications.  But  instead 
of  moving -.directly  out,  they  encamped  within  the  Wall  which  was 
on  the  edge  of  the  wilderness.  Instead  of  hastening  through  the 
border  barrier,  they  halted  before  it.  And  why? 

12.  A SHARP  TURN  AND  ITS  PURPOSE. 

It  was  not  for  the  people  to  move  or  to  rest  entirely  at  their  own 
will.  As  it  was  common  for  Eastern  armies  to  be  guided  by  a 

1 Exod.  12 : 37. 

2 The  Hebrew  word  is  be  “ in/’  “ within,”  or  “ at.”  3 Exod.  13 : 20. 

* See  Exod.  3 : 7,  8,  15-17  ; 4 : 29-31 ; 6 : 2-8 ; 14  : 3-5,  11,  12. 

5 Exod.  3:  18;  5:  3;  8:  25-27.  A three  days’  journey  might  have  taken  them 

from  Shur  to  Kadesh. 


6 See  page  338,  supra. 


’ Exod.  12 : 30-33. 


A SHARP  TURN  AND  ITS  PURPOSE. 


397 


column  of  smoke  moving  on  in  their  van  by  day,  and  by  a 
streaming  banner  of  flame  before  them  in  the  night ; 1 so  now,  as 

1 Traveling  by  night  is  a favorite  practice  with  Eastern  caravans,  because  of  the 
heat  of  the  day  in  contrast  with  the  coolness  of  the  night.  Burton  illustrates  this  in 
his  Pilgrimage  to  El-Medinah  and  Meccah  (American  edition,  pp.  153-166).  Roberts 
tells  of  it  {Oriental  lllus.,  p.  72)  as  common  in  India.  Distance  is  even  often  noted  by 
the  number  of  “ nights,”  rather  than  “ days.”  Thus,  for  example,  Egypt  is  said  in 
an  Arabian  geography  to  be  “ forty  nights  ” in  extent  from  north  to  south  (see  Ex- 
tracts from  “ Geography  of  Abd-er-Eashid  el-Bakouy,”  in  Memoirs  Relative  to 
Egypt,  p.  433,  note).  “ The  Arabian  authors  frequently  reckon  by  nights’,  and  not 
by  days’,  journeys.” 

The  custom  of  guiding  caravans  by  means  of  smoke  and  light  is  referred  to  by 
many  authors.  Kurtz  (Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  II.,  297  /.)  clusters  numerous  illustrations 
of  the  custom.  Curtius  (De  Rebus  Gestis,  V.,  2-7)  tells  of  Alexander  the  Great  em- 
ploying this  method  in  his  campaigns.  A trumpet  gave  the  signal  for  a march.  But 
as  its  sound  could  not  be  heard  amid  the  noise  and  confusion  of  an  encampment,  it 
was  supplemented  by  a beacon  or  cresset  on  a lofty  pole  before  his  head-quarters 
pavilion.  This  could  be  seen  by  all  from  near  and  far ; and  it  was  a guide  to  all. 
“ Fire  was  to  be  the  signal  by  night;  smoke  by  day  ” (“  Observdbatur  ignis  noctu, 
fumus  interdiu  ”).  The  context  of  the  narrative  in  Curtius  shows  that  Alexander 
adopted  this  custom  in  the  East— where  it  probably  had  long  prevailed.  Harmar 
( Observations , II.,  265-273)  shows  that  to  the  present  day  the  same  custom  is  adopted 
by  trading  caravans.  In  one  of  the  Anastasi  Papyri  (quoted  in  Speaker's  Com.  at 
Exod.  13 : 21),  “ the  commander  of  an  expedition  is  called,  ‘ a flame  in  the  darkness 
at  the  head  of  his  soldiers.’  ” It  is  not  that  the  pillar  of  fire  and  cloud  which  led 
the  Israelites  was  not  miraculous  ; but  it  is  that  its  form  and  purpose  were  in  the  line 
of  Oriental  methods.  “We  cannot  but  acknowledge,”  says  Kurtz,  “that  in  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  in  which  Jehovah  himself  accompanied  and  conducted 
his  people,  there  was  some  reference  to  the  ordinary  caravan-fire,  which  served  as  a 
guide  as  well  as  a signal  of  encampment  and  departure  to  the  caravans  and  armies  of 
the  East.  For  in  the  design  and  form  of  the  two  phenomena  we  can  trace  exactly 
the  same  features ; the  difference  being  that  the  one  was  a merely  natural  arrange- 
ment, which  answered  its  purpose  but  very  imperfectly,  and  was  exceedingly  insig- 
nificant in  its  character,  whilst  the  other  was  a supernatural  phenomenon,  beyond 
all  comparison  more  splendid  and  magnificent  in  its  form,  which  not  only  served  as 
a signal  of  encampment  and  departure,  and  led  the  way  in  an  incomparably  superior 
manner,  but  was  also  made  to  answer  far  greater  and  more  glorious  ends.” 

Pitts  ( Religion  and  Manners  of  Mahometans,  p.  430  /.),  describing  the  annual 
Mekkeh  Pilgrimage,  says  : “ They  have  lights  by  night  (which  is  the  chief  time  of 
traveling,  because  of  the  exceeding  heat  of  the  sun  by  day),  which  are  carried  on  the 


398 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


the  children  of  Israel  went  out  at  the  Lord’s  command,  “ the  Lord 
went  before  them  by  day  in  a pillar  of  a cloud,  to  lead  them  the 
way ; and  by  night  in  a pillar  of  fire,  to  give  them  light ; to  go 
by  day  and  night.  He  took  not  away  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  by 
day,  nor  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  from  before  the  people.”1 
And  they  must  march  or  rest  as  the  guiding  pillar  moved  on  or 
stayed.2 

“ And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh  had  let  the  people  go,  that 
God  led  them  not  through  [out  of  Egypt  by]  the  Way  of  the  Land 
of  the  Philistines,  although 3 that  was  near 4 [when,  they  were  en- 
camped there  not  far  from  it,  within  the  Wall  after  their  leaving 
Succoth] ; for  God  said,  Lest  peradventure  the  people  repent  when 
they  see  war,  and  they  return  to  Egypt.”  The  people  were  not  yet 
a nation  in  condition  for  warfare ; to  fight  their  way  into  Canaan. 
They  must  have  a farther  training  to  fit  them  for  a work  of  con- 

tops  of  high  poles,  to  direct  the  hagges  [pilgrims]  in  their  march.  They  are  some- 
what like  iron  stoves,  into  which  they  put  short  dry  wood,  which  some  of  the  camels 
are  loaded  with ; it  is  carried  in  great  sacks,  which  have  a hole  near  the  bottom, 
where  the  servants  take  it  out  as  they  see  the  fires  need  a recruit.  Every  cottor 
[company,  or  division]  hath  one  of  these  poles  belonging  to  it,  some  of  which  have 
ten,  some  twelve,  of  these  lights  on  their  tops,  or  more  or  less ; and  they  are  likewise 
of  different  figures  as  well  as  numbers  ; are  perhaps  oval  way,  like  a gate  ; another 
triangular,  or  like  an  N or  M,  etc.,  so  that  every  one  knows  by  them  his  respective 
cottor.  They  are  carried  in  the  front,  and  set  up  in  the  place  where  the  caravan  is 
to  pitch,  before  that  comes  up,  at  some  distance  from  one  another.  They  are  also 
carried  by  day,  not  lighted ; but  yet  by  the  figure  and  number  of  them  the  hagges  are 
directed  to  what  cottor  they  belong,  as  soldiers  are,  by  their  colors,  where  to  rendez- 
vous ; and  without  such  directions  it  would  be  impossible  to  avoid  confusion  in  such 
a vast  number  of  people.” 

1 Exod.  13  : 21-22.  * Num.  9 : 15-23. 

3 There  has  been  some  discussion  over  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  word  kee  ('3),  here 
translated  “ although.”  It  is  claimed  by  some  (see  Schaff-Lange  Com.,  in  loco)  that 
it  should  be  rendered  “ for.”  But  the  meaning  of  the  sentence  is  the  same  in  either 
case.  “ They  were  not  led  that  road  for  its  nearness.”  Yet  Gesenius,  Kalisch, 
Alford,  Murphy,  and  others,  approve  the  reading  “ although.” 

* Hebrew  qarohh  (Slip),  “ nigh,”  “ at  hand.” 


A SHARP  TURN  AND  ITS  PURPOSE. 


’399 


quest.  “ But  God  led  the  people  about  [around  by]  the  Way  of 
the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea.”  1 From  the  northernmost  of  the 
three  roads  out  of  Egypt  desert  ward,  they  must  turn  to  the  south- 
ernmost. Well-nigh  the  whole  stretch  of  the  Isthmus,  the  entire 
eastern  border  of  Lower  Egypt,  must  be  wearily  traversed  by  that 
restless  and  undisciplined  multitude.  “ And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  turn 
[literally,  “turn  away  ”2]  and  encamp  before  Pi-hahiroth,  between 
Migdol  and  the  sea,  over  against  Baal-zephon  : before  it  shall  ye 
encamp  by  the  sea.”  3 All  that  journey  to  be  taken,  and  then  an 
encampment  at  the  end  of  it.  A strange  and  bewildering  order. 
And  God  knew  that  it  would  seem  strange,  and  that  it  would  be 
bewildering;  and  it  was  for  just  that  reason  that  he  gave  the  order. 

“ For  Pharaoh  will  say  of  the  children  of  Israel  [when  he  hears 
of  this  strange  retrogressive  movement,  said  the  Lord],  They  are 
entangled  4 [confused,  bewildered,  dazed]  in  the  land  [in  my  land, 
in  the  land  of  Egypt] ; the  wilderness  [beyond,  with  its  terrors] 
hath  shut  them  in  [here].5  And  ...  he  shall, follow  after  them; 

1 Exod.  13 : 17,  18.  This  statement  is  clearly  a comprehensive  one,  in  advance  of 
the  details  of  the  narrative  which  it  summarizes.  It  is  so  understood  by  scholars 
generally.  “We  have  here  to  do  with  an  introductory  and  summary  account,”  says 
Lange  (Schaff- Lange  Com.,  in  loco). 

2 See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v.  shoobh  (3*1$).  The  word  always  means  an  entire 
change  of  direction,  a turning  away  from.  Commonly,  although  not  always,  it 
means  to  turn  back , to  return.  In  Josh.  19 : 12,  27,  29,  34,  it  is  employed  as  describ- 
ing an  abrupt  change  of  direction,  yet  not  a return.  The  word  is  used  for  the  turning 
away  from  sin  in  “conversion.”  (See  Englishman’s  Heb.  and  Chald.  Concord,  s.  v.) 
As  Mead  says  (in  Schnff-Lange  Com.  in  loco),  “ If  merely  turning  aside  had  been 
meant  [here],  soor  pID),  or  panah  (HID)  would  have  been  used.” 

3  Exod.  14:  1,2. 

4 Hebrew  bookh  (^3),  “confused,”  “ perplexed.”  See  Gesenius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v. 

5 It  is  a noticeable  fact,  that  to  this  day  a common  argument  against  accepting  the 
plain  record  of  the  Bible  text,  as  to  the  directed  course  of  the  Israelites  in  this  move 
southward  from  the  northernmost  road,  is  its  seeming  unreasonableness.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  Jewish  historian  Graetz  ( Gesch . der  Juden,  I.,  384)  says  confidently: 


400 


KA  DESII-BARNEA. 


and  I will  bo  honored  upon  Pharaoh,  and  upon  all  his  host,”  1 It 
has  been  so  common  to  understand  the  word  “ entangled,”  of  our 
English  version,  as  referring  to  a geographical,  instead  of  a mental, 
entanglement,  that  the  plain  meaning  of  the  text  has  been  obscured 
in  the  minds  of  most  readers.  When  Pharaoh  should  hear  that 
the  people  whom  he  had  manumitted  had  failed  to  go  out  from  the 
land  of  their  bondage ; but  that  on  the  contrary,  after  days  of 
waiting,  they  had  actually  turned  back  from  the  very  gates  of  the 
wilderness  barrier,  and  were  now  wandering  in  seeming  aimlessness 
along  the  inner  face  of  that  barrier, — what  could  he  think  but  just 
that  which  is  foretold  in  the  text,  as  sure  to  be  his  opinion?  “ Poor 
fools  ! ” he  would  say  to  himself.  “ They  would  not  know  when 
they  were  well  off.  Now  that  they  have  reached  the  borders  of  my 
land,  and  think  of  going  out  into  the  wilderness  beyond,  they 
shrink  from  it ; and  no  wonder  that  they  do.  They  move  from 
place  to  place,  uncertain  as  to  their  better  course.  They  are  in 
sore  perplexity  here  in  the  land ; but  they  cannot  go  outside  of  it. 
The  wilderness  is  too  forbidding  for  their  entrance  to  it ; it  shuts 
them  in  here.  They  are  now  in  a good  state  to  be  brought  back  to 
their  work  and  their  homes.” 

Like  the  Bible  narratives  generally,  this  story  of  the  exodus 
does  not  read  in  unbroken  continuity.  First  there  will  come  a 

“Are  we  to  suppose  that  they  marched  forty-five  miles  along  the  western  shores  of 
the  Bitter  Lakes  [after  reaching  that  part  of  the  eastern  border],  and  even  to  the 
southern  point  [of  the  Isthmus]  ? To  what  purpose?  The  farther  south  they  followed 
that  route  the  more  dangerous  was  their  march.  It  was  just  rushing  into  the  lion’s 
jaws.”  It  evidently  strikes  Graetz  now  much  as  the  Lord  said  it  would  strike 
Pharaoh  at  the  time.  So,  again,  it  has  impressed  Villiers  Stuart  ( Nile  Gleanings , 
p.  7) : “ It  would  be  utterly  inconceivable,”  he  says,  “ that  Moses,  . . . would  delib- 
erately go  out  of  his  way  to  place  the  Red  Sea  between  himself  and  the  point  to 
reach,  when  the  direct  route  of  the  isthmus  lay  before  him.  That  he  may  have  done 
it  to  create  an  occasion  for  a miracle  is  quite  untenable  ” — notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  the  Bible  distinctly  declares  (See  Exod.  14:  1-4)  that  this  was  so!  . 

1 Exod.  14 : 3,  4. 


A SHARP  TURN  AND  ITS  PURPOSE . 


401 


summary  statement,  as  of  the  Lord’s  leading  his  people  around  by 
the  southernmost  road  instead  of  the  northern  one.1  Then  there 
will  follow  the  details  of  the  people’s  movements,  step  by  step.2 
After  that,  in  alternation,  the  movements  of  Pharaoh  and  of  the 
people,  will  be  given,  one  by  one.3  So  now,  after  the  Lord’s  an- 
nouncement of  what  will  surely  be  the  opinion  of  Pharaoh,  the 
record  goes  back  to  show  how  Pharaoh’s  mind  had  been  prepared 
for  this  stage  of  the  Lord’s  plans.4 

The  order  for  the  manumission  of  the  Israelites  had  been  given 
by  Pharaoh  in  an  hour  of  intensest  excitement,  and  under  the 
pressure  of  personal  grief  and  fear.5  After  the  orders  issued  by 
him,  had  been  obeyed,  the  report  of  their  execution  by  those  to 
whom  they  had  been  entrusted,  was  duly  made  to  the  king.  Then 
came  the  natural  conflict  of  feeling  in  view  of  all  the  facts  involved. 
“ And  it  was  told  the  king  of  Egypt  that  the  people  [had G]  fled 
[had  gone  as  he  had  directed] : and  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  and  his 
servants  was  turned  against  the  people.”  7 “ A good  riddance  ! ” 

was  the  first  thought,  with  the  memory  fresh  in  mind  of  the  terrible 
plagues  which  Egypt  had  endured  on  that  people’s  account.  But 
when  the  empty  houses  of  all  that  people  were  numbered,  and  the 
thought  came  of  the  lack  of  those  efficient  laborers,  and  those 
border-land  defenders,8  there  was  another  feeling  than  that  of  re- 
joicing on  the  part  of  Pharaoh  and  his  servants.  “ And  they  said, 
Why  have  we  done  this,  that  we  have  let  Israel  go  from  serving 
us  ? ” And  when  Pharaoh  was  in  that  frame  of  mind,  and  the  news 
was  brought  to  him  of  the  aimless  wanderings  of  the  bewildered 
people  on  the  borders  of  his  land,  and  still  within  its  walls, — is 
there  any  wonder  that  he  should  rouse  himself  up  for  their  pursuit? 
His  feeling  must  have  been  : “ I will  go  down  and  drive  back  those 

1 Exod.  13  : 17,  18.  2 Exod.  13  : 19,  20. 

3 Exod.  14 : 5-12.  4 Exod.  14 : 5.  3 Exod.  12 : 30-33. 

6 See  note  on  Hebrew  tenses,  at  p.  389,  /.  7 Exod.  14 : 5.  8 Exod.  1 : 10-14. 

26 


402 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


poor  fools  to  their  work  again.”  And  “ the  Egyptians  pursued 
after  them,  all  the  horses  and  chariots  of  Pharaoh,  and  his  horse- 
men, and  his  army,  and  overtook  them  encamping  by  the  sea,  be- 
side Pi-hahiroth,  before  Baal-zephon.”  1 


13.  THEORIES  OF  THE  ROUTE. 

The  prefatory  summary  of  this  narrative  in  the  Bible  text2 
shows,  that  the  new  move  of  the  Israelites  was  from  near  61  the 
Way  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,”  to  near  “ the  Way  of  the 
Wilderness  of  the  Bed  Sea;”  or,  as  has  already  been  shown,  from 
the  northernmost  to  the  southernmost  of  the  three  great  highways 
out  of  Lower  Egypt  eastward.  This  would  place  their  encamp- 
ment, at  the  time  of  Pharaoh’s  coming  in  their  pursuit,  at  a point, 
or  in  a region,  near  the  then  head  of  the  western  arm  of  the 
“ Yam  Sooph,”  or  Bed  Sea,  the  modern  Gulf  of  Suez;  over 
against  that  gateway,  or  sally-port,  of  the  Great  Wall,  which  served 
as  the  exit  of  that  southernmost  road  into  the  wilderness.  This 
in  itself  sufficiently  locates  its  vicinity,  even  without  any  identi- 
fication of  the  particular  land-marks  noted  in  the  narrative ; al- 
though helps  to  such  identifyings  are  not  entirely  wanting. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  doubts  which  have  been  raised  by  some, 
concerning  the  ancient  limits  of  the  western  arm  of  the  Bed  Sea, 
and  its  identity  with  the  Yam  Sooph  of  the  Bible-text,  have  con- 
fused the  minds  of  investigators  in  their  endeavors  to  track  the 
route  of  the  Israelites.  Thus,  for  example,  Graetz3  has  latterly 
argued  for  the  crossing  of  the  Israelites  at  a point  north  of  Lake 
Timsah,  near  what  lias  been  shown  to  be  the  highest  point  of  the 
Isthmus,  and  not  far  from  what  must  have  been  the  Way  of  Shur. 
Any  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  proofs  of  the  limits  of  the  Gulf  of 

2 Exod.  13  : 17,  18. 

3 Gesch.  der  Juden , I.,  378-390. 


1 Exod.  14 : 9. 


THEORIES  OF  THE  ROUTE. 


403 


Suez  in  ancient  times  will  see  tlie  essential  error  in  the  argument 
of  Graetz.  M.  de  Lesseps1  has  suggested  a crossing-place  a little 
to  the  south  of  Lake  Timsah.  But  he  is  evidently  not  so  familiar 
with  the  Isthmus  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Moses,  as  with  the 
Isthmus  as  it  is  to-day.  And  so  it  might  be  said  of  many  others 
who  have  proposed  to  find  the  ancient  head  of  the  Yam  Sooph  con- 
siderably farther  north  at  the  time  of  the  exodus,  than  at  present. 

Yet  another  theory  of  the  route  of  the  exodus,  would  carry  it 
along  the  borders  of  the  Serbonian  Lake,  on  a narrow  strip  of  land 
between  that  lake  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  This  theory  seems 
to  have  been  first  broached  by  Hase2  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  then  taken  up  by  Richter,3  later  in  the  same 
century.  It  was  re-stated  and  pressed  by  Thierbach,  in  1830.4  It 
was  further  elaborated,  and  advocated  with  fresh  vigor,  by  Schleiden,5 
in  1858  ; and  it  had  the  support  of  Schneider,  and  Radenhausen.6 
Again  it  was  taken  up  anew  with  a really  brilliant  and  dazzling 
array  of  claimed  corroboratory  evidence  from  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments, by  Brugsch,  before  the  International  Congress  of  Orien- 
talists at  London,  in  1874.7  This  theory,  as  thus  re-shaped  and 
presented  by  Brugsch,  attracted  very  many  and  carried  captive  not 
a few.  Its  strength  lay  in  the  reputation  of  its  eminent  advocate, 
and  in  his  unqualified  claim  of  sure  identifications  in  a field  where 
his  knowledge  was  unchallenged.  But  it  could  not  stand  the  test 
of  thorough  examination.  Its  very  foundations  were  baseless. 

For  myself  I can  say, — as  an  illustration  of  the  effect  of  an  ex- 


1  See  Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  146  /.,  and  his  sketch  map  at  p.  156. 

2  Hamelsveld’s  Bib.  Geog.  (a.  d.  1796),  IV.,  3.,  p.  349. 

3  See  Chester’s  “ Journey  ” in  Saw.  of  West.  Pal.,  “ Special  Papers,”  p.  86. 

4  See  Stickel’s  “ Der  Israeliten  Auszug  aus  iEgypten”  (p.  330),  in  Stud.  u.  Krit., 
for  1850. 

bDie  Landenge  von  Su&s,  pp.  189-202. 

6 See  Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  107. 

7 This  essay,  “ The  Exodus  and  the  Egyptian  Monuments,”  is  given  in  full  in 
Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  363-398. 


404 


KADESH-BARNEa . 


animation  into  the  several  points  claimed  by  Brugsch  in  support 
of  his  theory,  in  contrast  with  the  effect  of  its  surface  reading, — 
that  I was  swept  along  in  the  current  of  its  bold  assertions, 
and  that  I began  the  investigations  here  recorded  with  a strong 
prepossession  in  its  favor ; a prepossession  which  was  increased  by 
a conversation  concerning  it  with  the  late  Professor  Palmer,  of 
London,  and  by  a knowledge  that  it  had  the  confidence  of  other 
scholars  to  whom  I looked  up  with  admiration.  But  at  every  step 
of  an  independent  investigation  I found  fresh  cause  for  rejecting 
the  conclusions  of  Brugsch  on  the  points  which  were  vital  to  his 
theory.  In  my  studies  I gave  first  prominence  to  his  own  volu- 
minous and  learned  writings ; to  his  “ History  of  Egypt  under  the 
Pharaohs,”  his  “ Geography  of  Ancient  Egypt,”  his  “ Hieratic  and 
Demotic  Lexicon,”  and  his  “ Geographical  Dictionary.”  The  re- 
sult of  these  studies  as  supplemented  in  the  broader  field  of  kindred 
literature  on  the  points  in  question,  I have  already  referred  to,  in 
their  order  in  the  foregoing  pages.  I have  found,  and  I think  I 
have  shown,  that  in  the  treatment  of  the  sites  of  Pameses,  Succoth, 
Etham,  and  Migdol ; in  his  limitation  of  the  roadways  out  of 
Egypt,  and  the  extent  of  the  Wall,  Shur;  as,  also,  in  his  explana- 
tion of  the  term  Yam  Sooph, — at  each  and  all  of  these  points, — 
Brugsch  is  clearly  at  fault  in  his  exodus  theory,  and  is  at  variance 
with  positive  declarations  and  exhibits  of  fact  made  by  himself  else- 
where in  his  writings.  He  has  re-arranged  sites,  changed  direc- 
tions, and  mis-stated  distances,  as  if  for  the  purpose  of  conforming 
the  facts  to  a preconceived  theory  of  the  exodus.  And  as  to  the 
one  remaining  point  which  his  own  writings  did  not  negative  for 
its  necessary  use  in  his  theory,  his  brother  Egyptologists  affirm 
that  he  is  wholly  incorrect.  Scholars  so  eminent  in  this  realm  as 
Ebers1  and  Renouf2  insist  that  Brugsclfs  understanding:  of  the 

O O 


1 In  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  pp.  Ill,  526. 

2 In  Proceedings  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Arch.,  for  Nov.  7,  1882,  pp.  13-18. 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


405 


meaning,  and  hence  of  the  location,  of  “ Pi-liahiroth  ” is  entirely 
at  fault,  Renouf  going  so  far  as  to  say  that  Brugsch’s  attempt  to 
identify  this  site  u involves  the  wrong  reading  of  many  words,  a 
fatally  erroneous  and  exploded  system  of  etymology,  and  false 
theories  of  decipherment  and  language.” 

In  short,  it  has  been  found  that  of  the  eight  main  points  of 
claimed  identification  in  Brugsch’s  theory  of  the  exodus,  as  indi- 
cated above,  not  one  of  them  stands  the  test  of  a thorough  ex- 
amination ; whereas  if  any  seven  of  them  were  shown  to  be  fairly 
probable,  the  proven  error  at  the  eighth  is  sufficient  to  necessitate 
the  rejection  of  the  theory.1 

14.  THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 

And  now  to  return  to  the  Israelites  at  their  encampment  “ by 
the  sea,  beside  Pi-hahiroth,  before  Baal-zephon.” 2 They  were  yet 
within  the  Great  Wall.  They  were  near  the  Way  of  the  Wil- 
derness of  the  Red  Sea ; near  the  modern  Way  of  the  Hajj  out  of 
Lower  Egypt,  a highway  which  has  swept  across  the  desert,  from 
gulf  to  gulf,  from  time  immemorial.  They  were  not  far  from  the 
shore  of  the  Red  Sea ; in  a locality  where  three  well  known  land- 
marks were  back  of  them,  or  about  them3:  Migdol,  Pi-hahiroth, 
and  Baal-zephon.  Migdol  was  the  outlook  tower  which  overlooked 

1 1 will  say,  just  here,  that  this  examination  of  Brugsch’s  theory  was  substantially 
completed,  and  its  results  written  out,  before  the  record  of  the  discovery  of  the  site 
of  Pithom  was  received.  In  fact,  that  discovery  does  not  in  itself  disprove  a single 
essential  point  of  Brugsch’s  theory ; although  it  seems  to  have  reversed  the  opinions, 
concerning  that  theory,  of  reputable  scholars,  who  had  before  this  overlooked  the 
great  facts  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Egyptian  records  which  were  irreconcilable  with 
his  claims. 

2 Exod.  14 : 9. 

3 The  Hebrew  liphnai  ('IS*?),  rendered  “before,”  and  “over  against,”  with  refer- 
ence to  these  places  (comp.  Exod.  14:  2,  9;  Num.  33:  7,  8),  commonly  means  “in 
front  of,”  “ at  the  east  of,”  as  indicating  direction ; yet  it  also  may  mean  “ over 
against  ” in  a general  sense. 


406 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


that  southernmost  road  desertward.  A trace  of  its  site  seems  to  be 
preserved  in  the  hill  and  pass  of  Muktala  or  Muntula,  some  five 
to  six  hours  northwesterly  from  Suez.1  Pi-hahirotli,  or  as  it 
appears  in  the  Hebrew,  at  Numbers  33 : 8,  “Hahiroth”  (without 
the  Egyptian  place-mark  “ Pi  ”),  is  not  identified  beyond  dispute ; 
yet  there  are  seeming  traces  of  its  name  in  ’Agrood,2  or  Ajrood,3  or 
Akrood,4  where  is  now,  at  about  four  hours  northwest  of  Suez 
(northeasterly  from  Muktala),  a fortress,  with  a very  deep  well,  for 
the  accommodation  of  pilgrims  going  out  on  the  Way  of  the 
Red  Sea.5  The  correspondence  of  ? Ajrood  with  Hahiroth  has  been 
recognized  by  such  scholars  as  Ebers,6  Ewald,7  Kurtz,8  Stickel,9 
Keil  and  Delitzsch,10  Laborde,11  Strauss,12  Tischendorf,13  Canon 

1 See  page  377,  supra. 

as  given  in  “ Carte  Topographique  ” of  Description  de  VEgypte. 
as  given  by  Edrisi  (see  Ewald’s  Hist,  of  Israel.,  II.,  69,  note) ; also  in 
“Arabic  Index,”  Eobinson’s  Bib.  Res.,  III.,  Append.,  201,  first  edition. 

4  As  given  by  Niebuhr  ( Reiseb . nach  Arabien,  p.  216). 

5 See  Niebuhr  (as  above) ; Burckhardt’s  Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  627 ; Eobinson’s  Bib. 
Res.,  I.,  45  ; etc. 

6 “ As  concerns  the  name  ’Adjrud,  Agirud,  one  can  recognize  in  it,  without  hesita- 
tion, Pi-hachiroth,  or,  as  it  appears  in  its  Egyptian  form,  with  the  rejection  of  the 
prefix  syllable  Pa,  or  Pi,  denoting  locality  (properly  ‘house’),  Achiroth  ” (Ebers’s 
Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  526). 

7 “ The  opinion  of  Leon  de  la  Borde,  in  his  Commentaire  Geographique  sur  VExode 
et  les  Nombres  (Paris,  1841),  that  the  present  castle  ’Ajerud,  or  Ajrud  ....  is  to  be 
identified  with  its  site  and  name  [of  Pi-hahiroth]  ....  is  not  without  probability  ” 
(Ewald’s  Hist,  of  Israel.,  II.,  69,  note). 

8 “ Pi-hachiroth,  we  find  even  by  name,  in  Ajrud;  for  Pi  is  merely  the  Egyptian 
article,  . . . and  there  are  many  instances  of  analogous  changes  (compare  Stickel 
[Studien  u.  Kritiken,  for  1850],  p.  391)  ’’  (Kurtz’s  Hist,  of  Old  Cov.,  II.,  323). 

9  “ Der  Israeliten  Auszug,”  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  for  1850,  p.  391. 

10  “ The  only  one  of  these  places  that  can  be  determined  with  any  certainty  is 
Pihachiroth,  or  Hachiroth  (Num.  33:  8, . . . ),  which  name  has  undoubtedly  been 
preserved  in  the  Ajrud  mentioned  by  Edrisi,  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  ” 
(Keil  and  Delitzsch’s  Bib.  Com.,  at  Exod.  14:  1,  2). 

11  Com.  G'eog.  sur  VExode,  p.  75.  12  Sinai  u.  Golgotha,  p.  92. 

13  De  Israelitarum  Transitu,  p.  25. 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


407 


Cook,1  Clark,2  President  Bartlett,3  and  many  others  whose  opinions 
are  entitled  to  weight. 

Baal-Zephon  is  the  name  of  a divinity.  It  represents  a com- 
bination of  Semitic  and  Egyptian  objects  of  worship.  The  precise 
nature  and  symbolism  of  this  divinity  have  been  much  in  question  ; 
but  I think  that  an  examination  of  the  facts  available  will  make 
the  whole  thing  clear. 

When  the  Hykshos  kings  were  in  supremacy  in  Lower  Egypt, 
they  introduced  there  the  worship  of  the  sun-god  Ba’al,4  a chief 
deity  of  the  nations  north  and  east  of  Egypt,5  and  probably  their 

1  Speaker’s  Com.,  at  Exod.  14:  2. 

2 “ The  spot  [Pi-Hahiroth]  may  reasonably  be  identified  with  Ajrud  ” {The  Bible 
Atlas , p.  21  /.). 

3 “ There  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  good  reason  for  finding  Hahiroth  at  Ajrood  ” 
(Bartlett’s  Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  169). 

4 “ In  mentioning  the  names  of  Ba’al  and  Astarta,  which  we  so  frequently  meet 
with  in  the  inscriptions,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  that  both  have  their 
origin  in  the  Phoenician  theology”  (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , I.  244).  Birch, 
as  cited  in  Appendix  to  (A  Thousand  Miles  up  the  Nile ) names  “ Bal  or  Ba’al  ” as  an 
object  of  Egyptian  worship  “ introduced  from  Semitic  sources.”  See  also  his  Egypt , 
p.  117.  Ebers  {Piet.  Egypt,  I.,  100)  directly  ascribes  the  introduction  of  Ba’al  wor- 
ship into  Lower  Egypt  to  the  Hykshos  conquerors. 

5 “ The  inhabitants  of  the  region  from  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates  to  the  river  of 
Egypt,  and  the  Phoenician  colonies  in  the  Occident,  were  united  in  the  worship  of 
the  supreme  deity,  Bel  or  Baal.  The  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Bel  is  probably  a 
compressed  form  from  {Be’ el).  It  is,  at  all  events,  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  and 
Aramaic  SjJS  {Ba’al)  lord.  Not  infrequently,  however,  we  find  the  plural  O'SjtS 
{Be’alim).  This  may,  as  a plural  of  number,  in  some  cases,  refer  to  a plurality  of 
gods  as  worshiped  at  different  places,  and  under  different  attributes,  but  usually  it  is 
an  intensive  plural,  great  lord,  or  supreme  lord,  like  0,mL’N  {Elohim),  the  supreme 
object  of  reverence.  . . . Baal  was  also  the  sun-god,  and  hence  is  associated  with  the 
term  {shemesh)  sun ; and  his  place  of  worship  is  called  Beth-Shemesh,  and  in 
Phoenician  inscriptions  he  receives  the  predicate  Baal  Samim.”  (Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs, 
on  “ Jehovah  and  Baal”  in  “The  Sunday  School  Times  ” for  Aug.  4,  1883.) 

“ The  Ba’al  of  the  Syrians,  Phoenicians,  and  heathen  Hebrews  is  a much  less 
elevated  conception  than  the  Babylonian  Bel.  He  is  properly  the  sun-god,  Ba’al 
Shamen,  Ba’al  (lord)  of  the  heavens,  the  highest  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  but  still  a 


408 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


own  god  before  they  entered  Egypt.  In  doing  this,  with  a view 
to  meet  the  prejudices  of  the  Egyptians,  and  to  secure  for  their  god 
a recognized  place  in  the  worship  of  the  conquered  people,  they 
associated  their  deity,  under  an  appropriate  symbolism  with  Set, 
or  Sutekh,  or  Typhon,  who  was  already  the  patron-divinity  of 
Lower  Egypt;1  and  they  uplifted  that  dualistic-god,  of  Ba’al- 
Typhon,  into  the  pre  eminent  place,  in  Lower-Egyptian  worship.2 

mere  power  of  nature,  born  like  the  other  luminaries  from  the  primitive  chaos.” 
(Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  ed.,  Art.,  “Ba’al.”) 

Sanchoniathon  (as  given  from  Eusebius,  in  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments,  p.  4 /.) 
says  of  the  first  inhabitants  of  Phoenicia,  that  “when  great  droughts  came  [upon  the 
land]  they  stretched  forth  their  hands  to  heaven,  toward  the  sun,  for  this  (he  says), 
they  supposed  to  be  the  only  god,  the  lord  of  heaven,  calling  him  Beelsamin  [Ba'al- 
shamern],  which  name  among  the  Phoenicians  signifies  lord  of  heaven,  but  among 
the  Greeks  is  equivalent  to  Zeus,  or  Jupiter.” 

1 De  Rouge  ( Six  Prem.  Dyn.,  p.  9,  etc.,  cited  by  Tomkins)  finds  traces  of  Set  in  the 
Fourth  Dynasty.  Meyer  (Set- Typhon,  p.  47,  cited  by  Tomkins)  tells  of  a temple 
dedicated  to  Memphis  in  the  Fifth  Dynasty.  An  altar  in  the  Turin  Museum,  of  the 
time  of  the  Sixth  Dynasty,  has  on  it  an  inscription  to  Set,  according  to  Lepsius 
( Ueber  d.  erst.  AEgypt.  Gotter  kr.,  p.  48). 

2 “ Set . . . appears  on  the  monuments  as  early  as  the  Sixth  Dynasty,  and  is  treated 
with  the  same  honor  as  the  other  members  of  the  family  of  Seb.  . . . But  the  great 
interest  of  the  god  Set  was  his  connection  with  the  Hykshos  and  Canaanites,  when 
he  generally  bears  the  name  of  Sutekh  or  Sut.  As  such  he  was  worshiped  during 
the  Shepherd  rule  in  Amaris  [Avaris  ?] ; after  which  his  worship  still  continued, 
apparently  in  connection  with  Baal,  and  he  was  the  type  of  Northern,  as  Horus  of 
Southern,  Egypt.”  (Birch  in  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt,  III.,  144  /.) 

“The  testimony  of  the  Papyrus  Sallier  is  clear  and  explicit:  ‘ The  king  Apepi 
adopted  Sutech  as  his  god ; he  did  not  serve  any  god  which  was  in  the  whole  land.’ 
[Lushington’s  translation,  in  Rec.  of  Past,  VIII.,  3,  is : “ King  Apapi  took  to  him- 
self Sutech  for  Lord,  refusing  to  serve  any  other  god  in  the  whole  land.”]  Sutech, 
or  Set,  in  later  ages  the  representative  of  the  evil  principle  Typhon,  is  identified,  and 
was  certainly  confounded  with  Ba’al  of  the  Phoenicians,”  says  Canon  Cook  (in  Essay 
I.  appended  to  “Exodus”  in  Speaker's  Com.);  and  he  adds:  “ The  peculiarity  of 
Apepi,  and  probably  of  his  predecessors,  would  seem  to  be  his  exclusive  devotion  to 
this  deity.”  As  will  be  shown,  Ba’al  was  not  “ identified  ” with  Set,  although  he 
was  combined  with  him  in  worship. 

“At  the  head  of  all  stood  the  half  Egyptian  and  half  Semitic  divinity  of  Set,  or 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


409 


In  the  Egyptian  mythology,  Ra,  Osiris,  and  Horns,  represented 
the  sun.  There  were  various  symbolisms  in  these  deities,  in  their 
different  manifestations  and  relations ; but  in  a peculiar  sense  they 
all  stood  for  the  sun,  and  its  light,  and  its  favor,  and  its  life-giving- 
power.1  Over  against  them  stood  Set,  as  a symbol  of  darkness  and 
the  works  of  darkness ; and  he  was  at  times  in  conflict  with  each 
of  these  gods  of  light.  In  this  antagonism,  Set  was  the  representa- 
tive of  evil,  as  in  contrast  with  good ; more  especially  with  good 
as  represented  by  Horus,  his  immediate  and  constant  rival ; yet,  at 
the  first,  it  was  rather  the  notion  of  evil  as  the  necessary  adjunct 
and  complement  of  good,  than  of  absolute  evil — an  idea  which  had 
no  place  in  the  early  Egyptian  mythology.2 

Sutekh,  with  the  surname  Nub  ‘gold/  who  was  universally  considered  as  the  repre- 
sentative and  king  of  the  foreign  deities  in  the  land  of  Mazor.  In  his  essence  a 
primitive  Egyptian  creation,  Set  gradually  became  the  contemporary  representative 
of  all  foreign  countries,  the  god  of  the  foreigners.”  (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  I., 
244.) 

1 “ There  can  be  no  controversy  about  the  meaning  of  Ra,”  says  Renouf  ( Relig . of 
Anc.  Egypt,  pp.  113-117).  “Ra  is  not  only  the  name  of  the  sun-god,  it  is  the  usual 
word  for  sun.”  Again  there  are  “ mild  Osiris,  the  sun,”  and  Isis,  the  dawn,  who 
were  “ wedded  before  they  were  born,  and  the  fruit  of  their  marriage  was  Horus,  the 
sun  in  his  full  strength.”  And  in  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead  (chap.  XVIII., 
42,  43,  as  cited  by  Renouf)  it  is  told  how  Osiris  came  to  the  soul  of  Ra,  and  “each 
embraced  the  other,  and  became  as  one  soul  in  two  souls.”  “ This,”  adds  Renouf, 
“ may  be  a mythological  way  of  saying  that  two  legends  which  had  previously  been 
independent  of  each  other  were  henceforth  inextricably  mixed  up.  This,  at  all 
events,  is  the  historical  fact.  In  the  words  of  a sacred  text,  ‘ Ra  is  the  soul  of  Osiris, 
and  Osiris  the  soul  of  Ra.’  But  Horus  also  is  one  of  the  names  of  the  sun,  and  had 
his  myths  quite  independently  of  Ra  or  Osiris.”  There  are  some  reasons  for  suppos- 
ing that  the  two  sun  groups  of  Ra  and  Osiris  were  originally  quite  distinct,  but  were 
brought  together  through  some  political  uniting  of  the  regions  of  their  central  wor- 
ship. (See  R.  S.  Poole’s  Art.  “Egypt”  in  Encyc.  Brit.)  At  all  events  they  were 
ultimately  connected  interchangeably.  For  added  light  on  the  myths  of  Ra,  Osiris, 
and  Horus,  see  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  1-242 ; Bunsen’s  Egypt’s  Place , Vol.  I. ; 
Lepsius’s  Ueber  d.  erst  JEgypt.  Gotterkr. ; Poole’s  Art.  “ Egypt  ” in  Encyc.  Brit.  ; 
Yilliers  Stuart’s  Funeral  Tent  of  an  Egyptian  Queen,  pp.  25-28,  etc. 

2 “ Set,  though  the  antagonist  of  light,  in  the  myths  of  Ra,  Osiris,  and  Horus,  is 


410 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Set  stood  over  against  Horns  (and  in  Horus  there  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  a certain  blending  of  the  symbolism  of  Ra  and  Osiris 
also),  in  the  relation  of  night  to  day,  of  winter  to  summer,  of  desert- 
waste  to  river- valley,  of  treacherous  sea  to  solid  land,  of  struggle 
and  warfare  to  rest  and  peace.1  Set,  moreover,  stood  as  in  a sense 

not  a god  of  evil.  He  presents  a physical  reality,  a constant  and  everlasting  law  of 
nature,  and  is  as  true  a god  as  his  opponents.  His  worship  is  as  ancient  as  any. 
The  kings  of  Egypt  were  devoted  to  Set  as  to  Horus,  and  derived  from  them  the 
sovereignty  over  North  and  South.  On  some  monuments,  one  god  is  represented 
with  two  heads,  one  being  that  of  Horus,  the  other  that  of  Set.”  (Renouf’s  Relig. 
of  Anc.  Egypt , p.  119.) 

“ Of  evil  in  the  positive  sense  as  opposed  to  good,  the  Egyptian  religion  had  no 
knowledge.  Their  feeling  as  to  evil  was  that  it  was  but  transitory,  a passage  to 
future  salvation ; as  dying  was  merely  the  process  of  death,  which  was  in  fact  the 
threshold  of  the  true  and  everlasting  life.”  (Ebers’s  Piet.  Egypt , I.,  100/.) 

“ Looking,  therefore,  upon  the  bad  as  a necessary  part  of  the  universal  system,  and 
inherent  in  all  things  equally  with  the  good,  the  Egyptians  treated  the  Evil  Being 
with  divine  honors,  and  propitiated  him  with  sacrifices  and  prayers.  . . . During 
the  Eighteenth  and  Nineteenth  Dynasties,  and  perhaps  long  after  that  period,  he 
continued  to  receive  the  homage  of  numerous  votaries  ; but  subsequently  a general 
feeling  of  hatred  seems  to  have  sprung  up  against  him,  and  his  figure  was  erased 
from  the  sculptures.”  (Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  142.) 

1 “ Whatever  may  be  the  case  in  other  mythologies,”  says  Renouf  {Relig.  of  Anc. 
Egypt , p.  113),  in  referring  to  Max  Muller’s  theories,  “ 1 1 look  upon  the  sunrise  and 
sunset,  on  the  daily  return  of  day  and  night,  on  the  battle  between  light  and  dark- 
ness, on  the  whole  solar  drama  in  all  its  details,  that  is  acted  every  day,  every  month, 
every  year,  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  as  the  principal  subject’  of  Egyptian  mythol- 
°gy”  “ Set  the  destroyer  ....  is  darkness.”  “ The  victory  of  darkness  over  light 
was  appropriately  represented  by  the  myth  of  the  blind  Horus.”  {Ibid.,  p.  118.) 

Referring  to  the  myth  of  the  conflict  between  Set  and  Osiris  (which  was  continued 
by  Horus  for  his  father  Osiris),  Ebers  says  {Piet.  Egypt,  II.,  210) : “ The  inundation 
of  the  Nile,  and  the  fertility  of  the  earth,  the  illuminating  power  of  the  sun,  the 
fundamental  principles  of  human  life,  the  ultimate  triumph  of  goodness  and  truth, 
as  figured  by  Osiris,  are  apparently  assailed  and  vanquished  by  Typhon  [and  Birch 
adds  in  a note,  that  ‘ in  hieroglyphs  Typhon  is  called  Set’] — that  is,  by  drought  and 
the  encroachments  of  the  desert,  by  the  darkness  of  night,  mists,  clouds,  and  storms, 
by  death,  by  lies,  and  all  the  evil  and  restless  stirrings  of  the  soul ; but  as  soon  as 
the  diminished  flow  of  the  river  swells  again,  the  young  crops  grow  green,  a new  sun 
lights  and  cheers  the  world,  and  disperses  the  mists,  the  human  soul  rises  again  in 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


411 


the  guardian  god  of  foreigners,  as  over  against  Horus  the  guardian 
god  of  the  home-born.  And  as  Horus  was  peculiarly  the  tutelary 
deity  of  Southern  or  Upper  Egypt,  so  was  Set  of  Northern  or 
Lower  Egypt.1 

It  was  not  uncommon  in  the  mythology  of  Ancient  Egypt,  to 
combine  divinities,  as  well  as  to  interchange  them  in  their  peculiar 
symbolisms.  This  has  been  referred  to  in  the  association  and  inter- 
mingling of  Ra  and  Osiris,  and  again  of  Horus  with  both  these 
gods.  Again  it  is  illustrated  in  “ Amen-Ra,”  and  u Aten-Ra,”  and 
in  their  combinations  with  other  gods.2  Ordinarily,  however,  these 

the  other  world  to  a new  and  everlasting  life,  truth  triumphs  over  falsehood,  and 
good  conquers  evil.  Horus  has  overthrown  Typlion,  avenged  his  father,  and  restored 
him  to  his  throne.” 

Lepsius  ( TJeber  d.  erst.  JEgypt.  Gotterkr.,  p.  54)  speaks  of  Set  as  “ the  god  of  the 
empty  desert,  and  the  god  of  the  unfruitful  sea.”  Kenrick  ( Egypt  of  Herodotus,  p. 
186)  quotes  Plutarch  in  proof  that  the  Egyptian  Typhon  represented  the  burning 
“ wind  of  the  desert ; ” also/  that  “ as  the  sea-water  swallows  up  the  Nile,  Typhon 
became  an  emblem  of  the  sea,  which  was  held  in  abhorrence  by  the  Egyptian  priests, 
as  by  the  Brahmins.” 

Ebers  says  {Piet.  Egypt,  I.,  100)  that  “ Seth  or  Typhon  ” was  “ worshipped  first  as 
the  god  of  war,  and  of  foreign  lands.”  “ The  connection  of  Typhon  and  Mars,  of 
both  of  which  the  hippopotamus  was  said  to  be  an  emblem,  is  singular,”  says  Wil- 
kinson (Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  147) ; “and  there  appears  to  be  a great  analogy  between 
Hercules  and  other  of  the  reputed  Typhonian  figures.”  Brugsch  {Hist,  of  Egypt, 
II.,  3)  speaks  of  Sutekh  as  “ the  glorious  god  of  war.”  In  the  representations  of  the 
coronation  of  the  kings  of  Egypt,  Horus,  in  one  of  his  forms  (Hat,  or  Har-Hat)  is 
present  to  give  to  the  king  the  emblems  of  life  and  power,  while  Set,  in  one  of  his 
forms  (Nubti),  comes  to  teach  him  the  use  of  his  weapons  of  war.  (See  Wilkinson’s 
Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  134/.) 

1 Of  Horus  (as  Har-Hat)  Wilkinson  (as  above)  says : “ When  opposed  to  Nubti 
[or  Set]  he  appears  to  represent  the  Upper  as  the  latter  the  Lower  Country.” 

2 “Amen-Ra,  like  most  of  the  gods,  frequently  took  the  character  of  other  deities ; 
as  of  Khem,  Ra,  and  Chnoumis;  and  even  the  attributes  of  Osiris.  . . . which  though 
it  appears  at  first  sight  to  present  some  difficulty,  may  readily  be  accounted  for, 
when  we  consider  that  each  of  those  whose  figure  or  emblems  were  adopted,  was  only 
an  emanation  or  deified  attribute  of  the  same  great  Being,  to  whom  they  ascribed 
various  characters,  according  to  the  several  offices  he  was  supposed  to  perform.  The 
intellect  of  the  deity  might  be  represented  with  the  emblems  of  the  almighty  power, 


412 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


combinations  were  of  deities  which  were  similar,  or  kindred,  in 
their  symbolism.1  Only  in  the  case  of  Horus  and  Set  does  there 
seem  to  have  been,  in  the  days  before  the  Hykshos,  a combination 
of  two  gods  of  opposing  or  antagonistic  characters  and  purposes. 
Indeed  such  a combination  would  hardly  be  possible  except  with 
the  two  forces,  or  essences,  represented  in  these  two  gods.  But  this 
combination  clearly  did  exist,  as  is  shown  by  its  representation  on 
the  monuments,2  under  the  figure  of  a man  with  two  heads ; the  one 
the  hawk-head  of  Horus  (which  was  also  the  head  of  Ra)  ; the 
other  the  peculiar  head  of  Set,  resembling  “ an  ass  with  clipped 
ears.”  3 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  understand  the  meaning  of  this  symbolism. 
Horus,  as  representing  the  South  with  its  light  and  life-giving 
power,  stood  for  Upper  Egypt  with  its  supply  sources  of  the  Nile, 
the  stream  which  was  all  in  all  to  Egypt.  Set,  as  representing  the 

or  with  the  attributes  of  his  goodness,  without  in  any  manner  changing  the  real 
character  of  the  heavenly  mind  they  portrayed  under  that  peculiar  form ; and  in  like 
manner,  when  to  Osiris,  or  the  goodness  of  the  deity,  the  emblems  of  Ptah  the  crea- 
tive power  were  assigned,  no  change  was  made  in  the  character  of  the  former,  since 
goodness  was  as  much  a part  of  the  original  divinity  from  which  both  were  derived, 
as  was  the  power  with  which  he  had  created  the  world.”  (Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt. } 
III.,  9 /.)  See  also  a description  of  “Ammon-Horus,”  and  his  worship  as  Khem,  in 
Birch’s  Egypt,  p.  59;  and  again  of  “Aten- Ha”  (at  p.  107/.). 

1 Wilkinson  (Anc.  Egypt,  III.,  11)  says  of  Amen  in  his  mythological  combina- 
tions, “ Under  the  name  Amen-Ra  he  was  the  intellectual  sun,  distinct  from  Ra,  the 
physical  orb.”  And  he  adds : “ If  it  be  true  that  Amunti,  or  Amenti,  signified  ‘ the 
giver  and  receiver,’  the  Amen-Ra  may  be  opposed  to  Aten-Ra,  and  signify  the  sun 
in  the  two  capacities  of  1 the  receiver  and  the  giver.’  ” 

2 See  Plate  531,  in  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.  135 ; also  Plate  in  Bunsen’s 
Egypt's  Place  in  Univ.  Hist.,  at  close  of  Yol.  I. 

3 Tomkins  ( Times  of  Abraham,  p.  148)  thinks  that  “ the  horns  or  ears  of  the  Set- 
monster  may  be  conventional  representations  of  rays  of  light,”  such  as  are  found  on 
the  eagle,  and  on  the  hawk-headed  gryphon  of  Ba’al,  in  the  hieroglyphs.  “ The 
Set-monster  is  occasionally  represented  with  wings,”  and  in  Tomkins’s  opinion,  was 
intended  for  “ an  eagle-headed  lion.”  He  thinks  that  the  evidences  “ clearly  estab- 
lish the  joint  worship  of  Osiris  (or  his  son  Horus)  and  Set  in  these  very  early  times 
of  the  Fourth  Dynasty,  by  the  builders  of  the  great  pyrmids.” 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


413 


North  with  its  shade  and  its  desolation,  stood  similarly  for  Lower 
Egypt,  where  the  desert  and  the  sea  received  and  absorbed  the 
Nile.  But  the  South  and  the  North,  the  light  and  the  darkness, 
the  river  and  desert  and  sea,  had  certain  common  interests  and 
relations,  and  were  interdependent  on  each  other.  It  was  fitting 
that  their  combination  and  balance  should  have  some  such  re- 
cognition as  was  evidenced  in  the  two-headed  figure  of  Set-Nubti, 
whose  seat  of  worship  was  at  Ombos,1  and  who  seemed  in  a pecu- 
liar sense  to  indicate  the  co-working  for  a common  end,  of  the 
protecting  divinities  of  both  Upper  Egypt  and  Lower.2  Indeed 
the  two-headed  Set-Nubti  is  called  the  “lord  of  the  earth  ” 3 (which 
includes  the  idea  of  all  Egypt),  instead  of  being  counted  the  divin- 
ity of  only  one  portion  of  Egypt. 

It  will  now  be  seen  how  naturally  and  easily  the  incoming 
Hykshos  conquerors  may  have  adapted  the  Ba’al  cult  to  the  old 
Egyptian  worship.  Ba’al,  their  sun-god,  might  stand  for  Ra, 
Osiris,  and  Horus,  the  sun-deities  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  And 
in  dualistic  conjunction  with  this  sun-deity,  they  could  take  its 
fitting  opposite, — Set,  or  Typhon,  the  distinctive  divinity  of  Lower 
Egypt,  where  they  now  ruled.  Whether  they  had  worshiped  Set, 
or  Sutekh,  before  they  came  into  Egypt,  or  not,4  there  was  now  a 

1 Birch  (in  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  145)  says  of  Set:  “The  chief  seat  of  his 
worship  was  at  Ombos,  where  he  had  the  name  Nubti,  or  Ombos,  and  Set-Nubti,  of 
Set,  Lord  of  Ombos.”  It  was  Nubti  whose  figure  was  represented  with  the  double 
head.  (See  plates  in  Wilkinson  and  Bunsen,  as  above  referred  to.) 

2 Ebers  ( -Egypt . u.  d.  Buck.  Mose’s,  p.  248)  says,  that  in  addition  to  its  cosmic  signi- 
fication, this  combination  of  two  opposing  principles,  in  Horus-Set,  has  “ a political 
signification ; ” for  this  dual-divinity  “ is  often  called  ‘ the  Single-one  of  both  lands  ’ 
[the  Twain-one  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt];  ‘the  Horus  of  the  South  and  the 
North ; ’ ‘the  bestower  of  the  white  crown  of  Upper  Egypt,  and  the  red  crown  of 
Lower  Egypt.’”  See,  also,  on  this  point  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  135  f> 
Tomkins’s  Times  of  Abraham,  p.  1 46  f. 

3 Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  Egypt  is  often  spoken  of,  on  the  monuments,  as 
the  earth,  or  the  world ; as  including  all  the  earth  that  was  worth  having. 

4 After  the  days  of  the  Hykshos,  the  god  Set,  or  Sutekh,  was  a chief  god  of  the  Kheta 


414 


KADESU-BARNEA.  ' 


reason  for  their  exalting  his  worship ; in  the  fact  of  his  being  both 
the  local  divinity  of  their  new  dominion,  and  the  recognized  patron 
god  of  foreigners — such  as  they  had  been  before  their  triumph. 

This  new  dualistic  god  would  naturally  be  uplifted  into  a prom- 
inence far  beyond  that  ever  occupied  by  Horus-Set;  for  it  in- 
cluded in  its  scope  that  which  had  been  included  in  the  worship  of 
Ra,  Osiris,  and  Horus,  as  well  as  of  Set  and  Yubti.  It  was  in  a 
sense  the  worship  of  Ra-Set,1  or  Set-Ra,  and  traces  of  its  attempted 
improvement  under  that  very  name  have  been  found  on  the  monu- 
ments.2 Yet  Ba’al  so  took  the  place  of  the  Amen-Ra,  and  the  Ra- 
in the  north  of  Syria.  This  may  have  been  a result  of  the  Hykshos  reign  in  Egypt ; 
or,  again,  it  may  indicate  that  Set  was  familiar  to  them  before  their  Egyptian  sway. 
An  image  of  Sutekh,  or  Set,  accompanied  the  image  of  Khetasin,  the  king  of  the 
Kheta.  (as  his  patron  divinity),  on  the  silver  tablet  of  the  famous  treaty  of  peace 
between  that  king  and  Rameses  II.  (See  Rec.  of  Past,  IV.,  32 ; Brugsch’s  Hist,  of 
Egypt,  II.,  76, 410  /.).  I have  not  found  any  evidence,  nor  any  reason  for  supposing, 
that  Set,  or  Sutekh,  was  a god  of  the  northern  nations  before  his  Hykshos  wor- 
shipers had  brought  a knowledge  of  him  out  of  Egypt,  at  the  time  of  their  expulsion ; 
whereas  the  evidence  is  complete,  that,  centuries  before  that  date,  Set  was  worshiped 
in  Egypt,  and  Ba’al  was  worshiped  in  the  North  and  East ; and,  that  from  the  days 
of  the  Hykshos  rule  Ba’al  was  worshiped  in  Egypt,  and  Set  was  worshiped  beyond. 

1 “ There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  god  Ra  corresponded  to  the  Syrian  Ba’al, 
a name  implying  ‘ lord,’  which  was  given  par  excellence  to  the  sun,”  says  Wilkinson 
(Anc.  Egypt.,  III.  53). 

2 “M.  Mariette  has  discovered  the  curious  fact  that  one  of  those  kings  [of  the 
Twenty-second  Dynasty] , a hitherto  unknown  Osorkon,  altered  the  figure  of  Seth 
in  the  legends  of  Ramses  II.  at  Tanis  to  that  of  a Set-Ra”  ( Muste  Boulaq.,  p.  273). 
See  R.  Stuart  Poole’s  Art.  “ Egypt,”  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  ninth  ed.  Birch  adds,  that 
Set’s  “ worship  as  Set-Ra  . . . was  kept  up  by  Osorkon  II.”  (Wilkinson’s  Anc. 
Egypt.,  III.,  145.)  This  change  from  Set,  which  had  come  to  include  the  idea  of 
Ba’al-Set,  to  Set-Ra,  is  a natural  change  on  the  part  of  one  who  would  restore  the 
more  ancient  religion  to  the  land. 

Plutarch  ( De  Isid.  et  Osir.,  Chap.  50)  tells  of  a statue  of  Typhon  shown  at  Her- 
mopolis  (Heroopolis)  in  his  day,  as  “ a hippopotamus  on  which  stands  a hawk  fighting 
with  a serpent.”  This  statue  has  been  counted  by  some  (ineluding  Graetz  in  Gesch. 
d.  Juden , I„  385)  as  “ Ba’al  Zephon;  ” but  its  symbolism  is  clearly  that  of  Ra-Set,  or 
Horus-Set,  rather  than  of  Ba’al-Set,  or  Ba’al-Typhon.  The  hawk  represented  Ra, 
and  also  Horus  and  other  sun-gods  of  Egypt.  (See  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt,  III.,  4, 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


415 


Osiris,  cult,  that  it  is  not  strange  that  those  who  introduced  it  were 
charged  with  abandoning  the  worship  of  all  the  old  gods  save  only 
Set.1 

From  this  time  on,  the  worship  of  Ba’al  in  conjunction  with  the 
worship  of  Set,  or  Sutekh,  or  Typhon,  was  so  general  and  so  prom- 
inent in  Lower  Egypt,  that  the  intermingling  of  the  symbols  of 
the  two  gods  in  the  inscriptions  has  led  some  of  the  Egyptologists 
to  believe  that  the  two  gods  were  deemed  absolutely  identical,  in- 
stead of  inter-dependent  and  co-equal ; that  their  individual  per- 
sonalities were  lost,  instead  of  being  combined  in  a dualistic  union. 
Bunsen  first  suggested  2 that  Bar,  or  Bal,  or  Ba’al,  was  one  of  the 
names  of  Set ; and  that  Champollion  had  brought  out  the  proof  of 
this  “ without  recognizing  it.”  Ebers3  has  affirmed  that  in  the 
hieroglyphics,  “ for  Set,  the  Canaanitish  Ba’alim  are  regularly  the 
representatives.” 4 And  Canon  Cook5  has  claimed  that  “Sutech  is 

50,  124).  “ Porphyry  says,  ‘ The  hawk  was  dedicated  to  the  sun,  being  the  symbol 
of  light  and  spirit/  because  of  the  quickness  of  its  motion,  and  its  ascent  to  the 
higher  regions  of  the  air.”  “The  hawk -headed  Har-ITat,  whose  emblem  was  the 
winged  globe,  placed  over  the  doors  and  windows  of  the  Egyptian  temples,”  is  also 
closely  connected  with  Horus ; and  indeed  seems  to  be  one  manifestation  of  Horus. 
Moreover,  Horus  is  frequently  represented  as  battling  with  a serpent  (Aphophis,  or 
Apop),  which  in  its  turn  is  linked  with  Typhon.  And  Typhon  is  represented  by  the 
hippopotamus.”  (See  Anc.  Egypt.,  III.,  121, 152, 154).  Thus  the  Heroopolitan  image 
seems  to  have  been  the  lineal  successor  of  Ba’al-Zephon,  but  not  that  divinity  him- 
self. It  was,  in  fact,  Ba’al-Zephon  after  the  reformation.  Yet  that  image  illustrates 
the  dualistic  divinity  idea  of  Horus-Set,  and  of  Ba’al-Typhon. 

1 “ King  Apapi  [a  Hykshos  ruler]  took  to  himself  Sutech  for  lord,  refusing  to  serve 
any  other  god  in  the  whole  land.”  11  (First  Sallier  Papyrus”  Rec.  of  Past, V III.,  3). 

2 Egypt's  Place  in  Univ.  Hist.,  I.,  426.  3 Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  524. 

4 Ebers  has  thought  (see  Piet.  Egypt,  I.,  100)  that  the  Egyptians  gave  the  name  Set 
to  the  Hykshos  god  Ba’al  as  a term  of  opprobrium ; but  the  evidence  from  the 
monuments  is  conclusive  that  the  god  Set  received  unfeigned  homage  in  Egypt  down 
to  long  after  the  days  of  the  Hykshos.  As  Renouf  says  ( Relig . of  Anc.  Egypt,  p. 
120) : “ It  was  not  till  after  the  empire  that  this  deity  came  to  be  regarded  as  an 
evil  deity.” 

5 In  Essay  I.,  appended  to  Exodus,  in  Speaker's  Com. 


416 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


identified  with  Ba’al  in  numerous  inscriptions  ; ” and  that  “ Sutech, 
or  Set,  in  later  ages  the  representative  of  the  evil  principle,  is 
identified,  and  was  certainly  confounded,  with  Ba’al  of  the  Phoe- 
nicians.” But  Lepsius 1 is  sure,  that  'jvhile  the  fabulous  beast  which 
stands  for  Set  is  sometimes  placed  as  a determinative  after  the  name 
of  the  god  Bar,  or  Baru  (which  Lepsius  naturally  thinks  may  be 
the  Semitic  Ba’al 2) ; yet  that  the  god  Bar,  or  Ba’al  thus  indicated 
is  “ always  distinguished  from  Sutekli  the  son  of  Nut.”  And  Lepsius 
thinks  that  the  reason  for  this  use  of  the  Set-determinative  in  con- 
junction with  Ba’al  is,  that  Set  was  regarded  in  Egypt  as  the  god 
of  “ the  out-land,”  having  patronage  of  foreign  peoples  and  foreign 
gods ; hence  Ba’al  as  a god  from  an  “ out-land  ” is  brought  in  under 
the  guardianship  of  Set.3  And  this  would  well  agree  with  the  com- 
bination of  Ba’al-Set,  as  inaugurated  by  the  Hykshos  conquerors. 

Certainly  there  was  a clear  distinction  kept  up  between  the  gods 
Set  and  Ba’al,  even  while  they  were  worshiped  together,  in  the 
days  of  the  Ramessids.4  Rameses  I.  gave  to  his  son  a name 
signifying  “ He  that  is  devoted  to  Set.” 5 At  the  crowning  of 
Setee’s  son,  Rameses  II.,  Set  and  Horus  are  shown  to  have  partic- 
ipated.6 Yet  Rameses  II.,7  according  to  the  poem  of  Pentaur,  is 

1 Ueber  d.  erst  JEgypt.  Gotterkr , p.  50. 

2 Bunsen  {Egypt's  Place,  Vol.  I.,  p.  427)  gives  Bar  and  Bal  in  the  Egyptian  as 
synonymous  with  the  Phoenician,  Syrian,  and  Babylonian  Bel,  Bol,  Ba’al,  Ba’hal, 
Belus.  Birch,  also  {Egypt,  p.  117),  gives  Bar  as  synonymous  with  Ba’al.  And 
Lushington  {Rec.  of  Past,  II.,  68,  note)  says : “ Bar,  a war-god  of  foreign  origin, 
allied  to  Set  in  form  and  properties,  supposed  to  be  the  same  as  Ba’al.” 

8 So  Brugscli  (already  quoted  at  page  409)  says  ‘ Set  gradually  became  the  con- 
temporary representative  of  all  foreign  countries,  the  god  of  the  foreigners.” 

4  “ King  Seti  and  his  race  worshiped  the  foreign  gods  in  the  most  obtrusive  manner^ 
and  at  the  head  of  them  the  Canaanitish  Ba'al-Sutekh,  or  Set,  after  whose  name  his 
father,  Rameses  I.,  had  called  him  Seti — that  is,  ‘ the  Setish,’  or  ‘ the  follower  of 
Set.’  ” (Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  24.) 

5  See  Renouf’s  Relig.  of  Anc.  Egypt,  p.  119/. 

6  See  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  Plate  LXI.,  at  Vol.  III.,  p.  361. 

7  See  " Poem  of  Pentaur,”  in  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt , II.,  58. 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


417 


likened  by  his  eulogists  to  “ Ba’al  in  his  time”  ;*  one  of  his  brig- 
ades, in  the  great  battle  of  his  life-time,  bears  the  name  of  Set; 
and  by  his  enemies  he  is  said  to  represent  both  “Set”  and  Bar;” 
“Sutekh”  and  “Ba’al.”1 2  “No  mortal  born  is  he  whoso  is  among 
us ; Set,  the  mighty  of  strength ; Bar,  in  bodily  form,”  is  their  cry 
in  the  hour  of  his  prowess  at  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes.3  Set  and 
Ba’al  were  manifestly  two  gods,  although,  from  the  days  of  the 
Hykshos  rule  in  Egypt,  they  had  been  worshiped  in  dualistic  combi- 
nation, as  Ba’al  and  Set ; and  that  combination  justified  (and  it 
explains)  their  apparent  interchangeable  mention  after  that  date. 

Finally,  as  if  to  put  at  rest  all  question  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
Ba’al-Set  of  the  Hykshos  cult,  as  revived  by  the  Bamessids,4  the 
name  itself  of  the  dualistic  deity  in  its  Semitic- Egyptian  form  of 
Ba’ali-Zapoona,5  or  Ba’ali-Tsapuna,6  is  found  on  the  monuments ; 
and  that  this  is  the  same  name  as  the  Ba’al-Zephon  (or  the 
Ba’al-Tsephon)  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  does  not  admit  of 

1  See  Lushington’s  translation  of  “ The  Third  Sallier  Papyrus,”  in  Pec.  of  Past, 
II.,  68. 

2  See  Brugsch,  as  above  (p.  60) ; and  Lushington,  as  above  (p.  72). 

3 The  mention  of  Bar  or  Ba’al,  and  Sut  or  Sutech,  in  conjunction,  in  this  poem  of 
Pentaur’s,  clearly  does  not  mean  that  the  two  gods  are  identical ; for  Ammon,  and 
Ra,  and  Horus,  and  Ptah,  are  also  named  as  represented  by  Rameses  in  that  battle ; 
but  they  are  not  thereby  confounded  in  their  separate  identities. 

4 The  Ba’al-Set  worship  in  Egypt,  which  was  introduced  by  the  Hykshos  kings, 
fell  from  its  pre-eminence  with  their  expulsion ; and  in  this  fall  the  worship  of  Set, 
himself,  lost  somewhat  in  its  repute;  although  Set  still  received  honor  from  the 
kings  of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty,  even  from  the  last  king  of  that  dynasty  Hor-em- 
heb,  whose  name  indicates  his  devotion  to  Horus  the  opponent  of  Set,  and  who  is 
called  “Horus”  by  Manetho.  (See  Lepsius’s  Denkm .,  Abth.  III.,  Bl.  119,  122.)  But 
with  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty  there  was  a marked  revival  of  the  Ba’al-Set,  or  Ba’al- 
Typhon  cult.  (Comp.  Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egypt.,  HI.,  136-145;  Brugsch’s  Hist,  o) 

Egypt,  I.,  243-245,  274-278;  II.,  23-25,  393;  Renouf’s  Eelig.  of  Anc.  Egypt,  p.  119/., 
etc.) 

6 As  discovered  by  Goodwin,  in  one  of  the  papyri  in  the  British  Museum.  (See 
Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  393.) 

6 See  Ebers’s  Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  524  /. 


27 


418 


KADESE-BAENEA. 


serious  question.  Indeed  on  this  latter  point  there  is  no  dispute. 
It  is  agreed,  by  all,  that  Ba’ali- Tsapuna  is  Ba’al-Zephon,  The 
only  remaining  doubt  has  been,  as  to  the  identity  of  Ba’ali  Tsa- 
puna  (or  Ba’al  Zephon)  with  Ba’al-Set  or  (Ba’al-Typhon) ; 1 and 


1 Ebers  ( Gosen  zum  Sinai,  p.  524/.)  recognizes  the  fact  that  Ba’al-Zephon  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Ba’ali-Tsapuna  of  the  monuments.  He  is  also  confident  (Piet. 
Egypt , I.,  100;  II.,  210)  that  “Set”  and  “Typlion”  are  identical;  and  in  this  he 
agrees  with  Lepsius,  Bunsen,  Wilkinson,  Brugsch,  Birch,  Kenrick,  Renouf,  Maspero, 
Lenormant,  Cook,  and  Egyptologists  generally  ; but  he  is  not  sure  that  Tsapuna  (or 
Zephon)  is  the  same  as  Typlion,  or  Set.  He  thinks,  indeed,  that  the  “ Tsapuna  ” in- 
cluded in  the  “ Ba’ali-Tsapuna  ” of  the  monuments  (the  “ Baal-Zephon  ” of  the 
Bible)  “ may  have  been  the  Phoenician  god  of  the  North  Wind,  which  latter,  accord- 
ing to  Philo,  was  named  ‘ Tsaphon.’  ” As  a reason  for  his  doubt  concerning  the 
identity  of  Ba’ali-Tsapuna  and  Ba’al-Set,  he  says  of  the  hieroglyphs  which  represent 

the  former:  “After  the  Ba’al  group  is  placed  the  Set-animal(  j as  determina- 

tive ; after  the  name  Tsapuna  [is  placed]  the  class  sign  ( ^ ),  marking  him  as  a god 
of  foreign  lands.”  But  does  this  properly  throw  doubt  on  the  identification  ? The  class 


sign  ( ^ )>  which  here  follows  the  name  Tsapuna,  is  the  ordinary  determinative  for 
“ a god  ” ; and  Lepsius  has  shown  ( Ueber  d.  erst.  JEgypt.  Gotterkr , pp.  30,  52)  that  this 
very  determinative  is  repeatedly  employed  for  Set  ( ^ ) in  the  Egyptian  “ Book 

of  the  Dead.”  Ebers  may,  indeed,  consider  this  determinative  as  indicating  a foreign 
god,  because  it  is  not  the  specific  designation — the  proper  name  as  it  were — of  any 
well-known  Egyptian  divinity  (although  it  was  sometimes,  as  we  see,  employed  as  the 
proper  name  of  Set,  or  Typhon,  who  was  himself,  according  to  Lepsius,  and  Ebers, 
and  others,  the  “god  of  foreign  lands”).  It  must  be  considered,  however,  that  a 
composite  god,  combining  the  objects  of  worship  of  the  old  Egyptians  and  of  their 
new  masters,  and  bearing  a Semitized  Egyptian  designation,  could  not  well  have  a 
familiar  specific  Egyptian  determinative.  In  this  case,  the  name  of  the  Semitic 
Ba’al  is  followed  by  the  determinative  of  Set — an  unmistakable  Egyptian  deity 
(although  Ba’al,  the  sun-god,  and  Set,  the  god  of  darkness,  could  not,  in  the  nature  of 
things  be  considered  one  and  the  same;  and  they  were  not  so  considered,  as  Lepsius 
has  shown).  Then  follows  in  a Semitic-Egyptian  form  the  name  of  a god  known  m 
Egypt  as  Set,  and  in  Phoenicia  as  Tsaphon,  with  a closing  determinative  to  show  that 
the  combination  as  a whole  was  a divinity.  This  very  peculiarity  of  presentation 
would  seem  to  show  that  this  dualistic  divinity  was  an  exceptional  one  in  Egypt. 
The  missing  link  of  proof  that  the  Ba’al-Tsaphon  and  the  Ba’al-Set  were  one  and 
the  same  object  of  worship,  is  found,  in  the  evidence  of  their  identity  of  symbolism. 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL. 


419 


that  doubt  will  be  removed,  I think,  by  the  evidence  of  the  iden- 
tical symbolism  of  these  two  dualistic  gods. 

“ Ba’al-Zepliou  ” is  understood  by  many  to  mean  “ Lord  of  the 
North ; ” 1 but  this  is  to  take  the  words  in  their  hard  and  literal 
meaning,  without  recognizing  their  applied  and  symbolic  signifi- 
cation. Ba’al  had  a personality  in  the  minds  of  his  worshipers, 
which  went  beyond  the  etymological  meaning  of  his  name  as  “lord” 
and  “ master.”  To  them  Ba’al  was  Ba’al.2  So,  also,  it  was  with 
Zephon. 

Tsaphon,3  or  Tsephon,4  Tsephona,5  means  in  Hebrew,  and  in 
Phoenician,  the  North,  or  the  Darkness,  or  the  Shadow,  or  the 
Winter,  or  the  Region  of  Destructive  Winds;  as  over  against  the 
South,  the  Light,  the  Summer,  the  Region  of  Calm  and  Warmth ; 
“ since  the  ancients  regarded  the  North  as  the  seat  of  gloom  and 
darkness,  in  contrast  with  the  bright  and  sunny  South  ” ; 6 as  “ the 
dark  cold  region,  where  the  sun  and  stars  are  extinguished,  and  the 
light  swallowed  up.” 7 Tsaphon,  as  a god,  therefore,  included  the 
idea  not  of  the  North  as  a region,  but  of  that  which  the  region  of  the 
North  typified.  “Tsephon,”  or  “ Tsaphon,”  in  the  Hebrew  and 
in  the  Phoenician,8  was  the  correspondent  of  “ Teblia  ” in  the 

1 See  Selden’s  De  Dis  Syris  (chapter  Be  Bel-Tsephonte) ; Chabas  and  Lauth,  as 
cited  by  Ebers,  in  Gosen  zum  Sinai  (p.  524) ; Yon  Gerlach’s  Com.  on  Pent,  at  Exod. 
14:  2;  Bunsen’s  Egypt’s  Place,  ITT.,  201;  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  II.,  393, 
427 ; Sayce,  in  “ The  Sunday  School  Times  ” for  June  23,  1883. 

2 The  prophets  of  Ba’al,  at  the  trial  on  Mount  Carmel  (1  Kings  18:  21-40),  “ called 
on  the  name  of  Ba’al  from  morning  even  until  noon,  saying,  O,  Ba’al  hear  us ! ” 
And  Elijah’s  mocking  comment  was:  “Cry  aloud:  for  he  is  a god;  either  he  is 
talking,  or  he  is  pursuing,  or  he  is  in  a journey,  or  perad venture  he  sleepeth,  and 
must  be  awaked.” 

3 j'lSY . This  appears  to  be  the  form  given  by  Philo,  as  cited  by  Ebers. 

4 p22f.  As  given  with  Ba’al,  at  Exod.  14 : 2,  9. 

5 fcOiDV.  As  given  in  Buxtorfs  Lex.  Chald.  Tal.  et  Bab. 

€Gesenius’s  Ileb.  Lex.,  s.  v.,  “ Tsaphon.”  7Furst’s  Heb.  Lex.,  s.  v.,  “ Tsaphon.” 

8 See  references  at  foot  of  page  418,  supra. 


420 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


Egyptian,1  of  “ Tephon,”  or  “ Tuplion,”  in  the  Aramaic,2  and  of 
“Typhon”  in  the  Greek.3  Either  word  represented  the  idea  of 
each  and  all  of  the  other  equivalents  ; and  each  word  when  used 
as  the  name  of  a divinity  represented  a distinct  identity,  an  ideal 
personality. 

Every  indication  which  the  monuments  or  records  of  Egypt,  of 
Phoenicia,  or  of  the  regions  east  or  west  of  those  lands,  give  to  us 
concerning  the  characteristics  of  a divinity  bearing  any  one  of  these 
names,  goes  to  show  the  same  idea  which  is  represented  in  the 
earlier  Egyptian  divinity,  Set ; in  the  later  Hittite  divinity,  Sutekh ; 
and  in  the  still  later  Greek  divinity,  Typhon.  It  would  seem  clear 
indeed,  that  Set,  Seth,  Sutekh,  Tebha,  Tephon,  Tuphon,  Typhon, 
Tsapuna,  Tsaphona,  Tsaphon,  Tsephon,  Zephon,  represent  one 
and  the  same  idea,  principle,  essence,  divinity ; and  that  Ba’al 
(as  the  Semitic  correspondent  of  the  Egyptian  Pa,  Osiris,  and 
Horus)  in  combination  with  any  one  of  those  names,  represents 
the  opposite  of  that  idea,  principle,  essence,  divinity  ; the 
two  terms  together  representing  the  dualistic  divinity  of  Ba’al  -Set, 
or  Pa-Set,  or  Horus-Set,  or  Ba’al-Typhon,  or  Ba’al- Tsaphon,  or 
Ba’al-Zephon. 

How  clearly  all  this  brings  out  the  identification  and  relative 
location  of  the  sanctuary,  or  the  image,  of  Ba’al-Zephon,  in  the 
story  of  the  exodus.  Typhon  was  the  guardian  of  Lower  Egypt. 
Typhon  was  the  god  of  the  desert.  Typhon  was  the  emblem  of  the 
sea.  Typhon  was  the  controlling  deity  of  all  foreign  peoples. 
Typhon  was  the  favored  divinity  of  the  reigning  Pharaohs  in  the 

1  Ebers  ( Gosen  zum  Sinai , p.  225)  says : “ Typhon  appears,  according  to  Diestel’s 
thoughtful  exhibition  of  the  evidence,  to  be  originally  un-Egyptian.  ...  We  must, 
therefore,  with  Diimichen,  look  to  ‘ Tebha/  for  an  existent  name,  and  one  to  be  held 
as  Typhon.” 

2  See  Lenormant’s  Beginnings  of  History,' p.  551. 

3  Kenrick  ( Egypt  of  Herodotus , p.  185)  says  : “ The  name  [T v<p6v]  appears  to  be 
originally  Greek.” 


THE  LAST  CAMP  WITHIN  THE  WALL . 


421 


days  of  the  Hebrew  oppression.  Ba’al-Typhon,  or  Ba’al-Zephon, 
was  the  one  object  of  common  worship  among  those  who  accepted 
the  Ba’al  cult  imported  from  the  North,  and  those  also  who  de- 
terminedly adhered  to  the  old  divinities  of  the  Egyptian  theogony. 
The  place  of  places  for  a shrine  of  Ba’al-Typhon  was  over  against 
the  wilderness-gateway  of  Lower  Egypt ; looking  toward  the  East 
whither  the  Ba’al  worship  was  always  directed  ; overlooking  the 
desert  which  Typhon  ruled;  above  the  sea  which  Typhon  typified; 
watching  against  the  foreigners  whom  Typhon  controlled.  The 
northernmost  highway  out  of  Lower  Egypt,  as  also  the  central  one, 
went  Canaanward.  Only  the  southern  road  led  pre-eminently 
desertward,  while  at  the  same  time  it  was  in  proximity  to  the  sea. 

And  when  Pharaoh-Meneptah,  of  the  family  Devoted-to-Typhon, 
neared  the  eastern  borders  of  his  dominion,  and  saw  the  objects  of 
his  pursuit  gathered  there  under  the  very  shadow  of  his  own 
patron-divinity,  the  guardian  god  of  the  Land  which  they  would 
flee  from,  how  auspicious  must  the  sign  have  been  to  him  ; and  how 
confident  his  assurance  that  success  was  now  his,  so  certainly  as 
Ba’al-Typhon  was  Ba’al-Typhon.1 


1 The  more  common  symbol  of  Set,  or  Typhon,  was  a dog  of  peculiar  form  (as 
shown  herewith,  ly>- » is  noteworthy,  therefore,  that  a rabbinical  tradition 

was,  that  Ba’al-Zephon  “ was  a brazen  dog  fabricated  by  the  magi  of  Pharaoh,  . . . 
that  he  might  turn  aside  the  Israelites  from  their  directed  journey,  by  his  horrid 
barking;  and  so  might  stop  their  flight”  (Dieterici’s  Antiq.  Bib.,  p.  24).  “Bashi” 
(’al  ha- Torah,  at  Exod.  14:  2)  states  that  Ba’al-Zephon  was  the  one  remaining  idol 
of  Egypt  from  whose  seductions  the  Israelites  were  to  escape  (as,  in  fact,  Ba’al-Set 
was  the  one  dominant  idol  of  the  region  of  the  Israelites’  bondage);  and  “Bashi” 
declares  that  this  idol  was  called  3VX  ( Ayob ),  or  “ Enemy,”  “from  causing  nations 
to  err,  and  destroying  them.”  This  character  corresponds  with  the  Typhonic  or 
Satanic  idea.  Indeed  the  Hebrew  name  of  Satan  (jt?Kf)  means  Adversary,  or  Accu- 
ser (See  Job  1:  6,  and  margin;  also,  Psa.  109:  6;  Zech.  3 : 1).  And  Villiers  Stuart 
has  suggested  ( Funeral  Tent  of  an  Egyptian  Queen,  p.  27)  that  Set  being  “repre- 
sented as  a beast  with  long  pointed  ears  and  erect  tail”  may  “be  the  origin  of  the 
popular  representations  of  Satan,  the  ears  having  come  to  be  regarded  as  horns.” 


422 


KADESE-BARNEA , 


In  fixing  the  location  of  the  shrine  of  Ba’al-Zephon  yet  more 
definitely,  there  are  helps  in  its  mention  in  the  text.  The  place  of 
the  encampment  of  the  Israelites  by  the  Red  Sea  is  described  by  four 
cardinal  points.  It  is  in  some  way  bounded,  or  indicated,  by  : — 
Migdol,  the  Sea,  Pi-hahiroth,  and  Ba’al-Zephon.1  The  Sea  must, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  have  lain  at  the  eastward.  As  the  com- 
mandment was  to  encamp  “ between  Migdol  and  the  Sea,” 2 Migdol 
is  naturally  to  be  looked  for  at  the  westward  of  the  Sea.  And  as 
Pi-hahiroth  is  said  to  be  “ before,”  or  “ over  against,”  Ba’al-Zephon,3 
while  the  camp  is  at  one  time  said  to  be  “ before,”  or  over  against 
Pi-liahiroth,4  and  again  to  be  “ before  ” or  “ over  against  ” Ba’al- 
Zephon,5  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  “ before  ” Migdol,6  it  follows 
that  Pi-hahiroth  and  Ba’al-Zephon  must  have  been  in  the  relation 
of  northerly  and  southerly  to  each  other ; 7 since  Migdol  was 
westerly,  as  over  against  the  Sea  which  lay  easterly. 

This  corresponds,  so  far,  with  the  supposed  identifications  of 
Migdol,  at  or  near,  Muktala;  and  of  Pi-hahiroth,  or  Hahiroth,  at 
’Ajrood.  The  landmarks  at  the  northerly  and  westerly  bounds  of 
the  place  of  encampment  are  at  points  which  conform  with  all  the 
indications  of  the  text.  This  goes  to  fix  the  shrine  of  Ba’al- 
Zephon  as  at  some  point  southerly  from  ’Ajrood,  and  southward  of 
a line  running  from  Muktala  to  the  Sea.8  In  that  direction  the 

De  Rouge,  followed  by  Tomkins  ( Times  of  Abraham , p.  149  ff.),  thinks  that  the 
Egyptian  Set  is  connected  with  the  Hebrew  shedheem  (DHl?)  translated  “devils”  in 
Deut.  31 : 17,  and  Psa.  106 : 37. 

i Exod.  14 : 2,  9 ; N urn.  33 : 7,  8.  2 Exod.  14 : 2.  3 Num.  33 ; 7,  8. 

4 Exod.  14  : 2.  5 Exod.  14  : 2,  9.  6 Num.  33  : 7. 

7 Our  English  translation  renders  the  same  Hebrew  word  with  different  equiva- 
lents in  the  Bible  narrative.  Liphnai  ('ish)  is  rendered  as  “ before,”  and  again  as 
“ over  against.”  This  is  a word  that  frequently  means  “ eastward,”  in  the  sense  of 
“ in  the  face  of”  (see  note  at  page  44).  But  the  fact  that  the  word  is  applied  in  the 
course  of  this  narrative  to  two  or  three  places  interchangeably,  shows  that  it  here 
means  “over  against,”  rather  than  “eastward.”  Two  places  could  not,  each  of  them, 
be  eastward  of  the  other ; but  each  of  them  could  be  over  against  the  other. 

8 Keil  and  Delitzsch  (Bib.  Com.,  at  Exod.  14  : 1,  2)  say  that  the  hill  of  Muktala, 


UNLOOKED-FOR  PURSUIT 


423 


mountains  of  ’Ataqah  stand  out  too  prominently  to  be  overlooked 
as  a probable  site  of  such  a shrine,  as  that  of  Ba’al-Zephon  must 
have  been.  Their  summit  commands  a view  of  the  isthmus,  of 
the  sea,  and  of  the  desert  eastward;  just  that  sweep  which  the 
worshipers  of  Ba’al-Typhon  would  have  wished  to  have  under  his 
watchful  gaze.  Ebers1  has  advocated  Gebel  ’Ataqah  as  a site  of 
Ba’al-Zephon,  and  other  scholars2  have  accepted  his  judgment  on 
this  point  as  probably  correct.  It  is  not  easy  to  find  any  sound 
reason  for  questioning  its  correctness. 


15.  UNLOOKED-FOR  PURSUIT. 

A glance  at  the  map  will  show  the  field  where  the  Israelites 
encamped  (over  against  Pi-hahiroth  on  the  north,  and  Ba’al- 
Zephon  on  the  south,  between  Migdol  on  the  west  and  the  Bed 
Sea  on  the  east),  when  they  had  turned  back  at  the  Lord’s  com- 
mand from  their  encampment  within  the  Great  Wall,  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Boad  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines.  And  it  was 
there  that  they  were  surprised  by  seeing  the  chariots  of  Pharaoh 
coming  down  from  the  westward  in  their  pursuit. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Israelites  were  up  to  this  time 
not  fugitives,  but  emigrants.  They  had  gone  out  from  their 
homes  not  secretly,  nor  in  the  fear  of  pursuit,  but  openly  and 
above-board ; “ with  a high  hand,  in  the  sight  of  all  the  Egyp- 


“ when  looked  at  from  the  sea,  is  almost  behind  Ajrud ; so  that  the  expression  ‘ en- 
camping before  Migdol 1 does  not  suit  the  situation.”  But  the  hill  is  farther  west, 
and  farther  south  than  ’Ajrood ; and  its  tower  would  plainly  be  a western  landmark, 
as  over  against  ’Ajrood  as  a northern  one.  The  description  of  the  locality,  in  the 
command  to  the  Israelites,  was  not  intended  to  fix  the  four  cardinal  points  of  the 
compass  precisely,  but  to  indicate  well-known  land  (and  water)  marks,  in  four  gene- 
ral directions. 

1 Gosen  zum  Sinai,  pp.  524-526. 

2 So,  e.  g.,  Keil  and  Delitzsch  (as  above) ; Hamburger  ( Real-Fncyc .,  s.  v.,  “ Ba’al* 
Zephon”) ; Bartlett  ( Egypt  to  Pal.,  p.  170). 


424 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


tians.” 1 It  is  true  that  the  “ Egyptians  were  urgent ” upon  them 
to  lose  no  time  in  leaving  their  homes,  and  that  “ they  were  thrust 
out  of  Egypt/’  or  out  of  their  old  Egyptian  dwelling-place,  because 
of  the  fear  that  to  hold  them  back  another  day  from  their  desired 
exodus  would  endanger  the  lives  of  all  who  hindered  them.2 
But  all  this  made  any  pursuit  of  them  for  their  re-capture  the 
less  probable,  even  though  they  dallied,  as  it  were,  for  many  days, 
at  the  entrance  of  the  wilderness.  Hence  their  surprise  when,  at 
their  encampment  by  the  sea,  “the  children  of  Israel  lifted  up 
their  eyes,  and,  behold,  the  Egyptians  marched  after  them  ;”3  the 
chariots  of  Pharaoh  coming  toward  them  from  the  field  of  Zoan. 

Then  it  was  that  “ they  were  sore  afraid,”  and  that  they  “ cried 
out  unto  the  Lord.”  And  for  what  ? Pharaoh’s  unexpected  pursuit 
of  them  showed  a new  change  of  mind  and  purpose  on  his  part. 
Either  he  was  actuated  by  a desire  to  avenge  the  blood  of  his 
first-born,  or  his  thought  was  to  turn  them  back  to  the  land  they 
had  come  out  from.  In  either  case,  if  they  were  to  pass  through 
the  Great  Wall  which  frowned  before  them,  they  must  now  battle 
for  the  privilege.  And  that  put  a new  face  on  the  entire  situation. 
After  all,  was  the  prize  before  them  worth  what  it  now  must  cost  ? 
They  had  been  long  enough  away  from  their  homes  to  feel  the 
discomforts  of  a nomadic  life;  but  not  long  enough  away  to 
see  its  possibilities  of  good  to  them.  The  wilderness  beyond 
the  Wall  was  at  the  best  a forbidding  outlook;  more  so  than  ever, 
with  a prospect  of  a life  and  death  struggle  to  reach  it. 

The  sight  of  their  former  masters  brought  fairly  before  them  the 
question  whether  they  had  really  gained  anything  by  leaving  their 
old  service,  or  whether  they  were  likely  to  gain  anything.  “ And 
they  said  unto  Moses,  Because  there  were  no  graves  in  Egypt,  hast 
thou  taken  us  [from  our  old  homes  in  Egypt]  to  die  in  the  wilder- 

1 Num.  33  : 3.  See,  also,  Exod.  14:  8. 

a Exod.  14  : 10. 


2 Exod.  12  : 33. 


THE  GREAT  WALL  FLANKED. 


425 


ness  [which  stretches  out  before  us  here  ? What  are  you  looking 
for,  anyhow  ? Is  it  graves  for  us  all  ? If  that  is  what  you  are 
after,  there  were  graves  enough  in  Egypt.  It  is  a land  of  tombs 
and  mummies.  And  there  is  certainly  nothing  better  than  graves 
in  the  wilderness  we  have  set  out  for].  Wherefore  hast  thou 
dealt  thus  with  us,  to  carry  us  forth  out  of  Egypt  ? Is  not  this 
the  word  that  we  did  tell  thee  in  Egypt,  saying,  Let  us  alone  that 
we  may  serve  the  Egyptians?  For  it  had  been  better  for  us  to 
serve  the  Egyptians,  than  that  we  should  [go  on  any  farther,  to] 
die  in  the  wilderness.”1  And  the  Israelites  were  more  than  half 
ready  to  make  terms  with  Pharaoh,  as  he  drew  near  their  camping- 
place  ; and  to  promise  to  turn  back  with  him  to  their  old  bondage. 
They  certainly  were  not  ready  to  fight  for  a passage  through  the 
sally-port  of  the  Great  Wall  in  their  front. 


16.  THE  GREAT  WALL  FLANKED. 

Then  it  was  that  Moses  spoke  the  words  of  cheer  and  promise 
which  put  new  heart  into  that  panic-stricken  people  : “ Fear  ye 
not,”  he  said  to  them.  “ [You  will  have  no  fighting  to  do.]  Stand 
still,  and  see  the  salvation  of  the  Lord,  which  he  will  show  to  you 
to-day  : for  the  Egyptians  whom  ye  have  seen  to-day,  ye  shall  see 
them  again  no  more  for  ever.  The  Lord  shall  fight  for  you,  and 
ye  shall  hold  your  peace.”  2 And  such  a prophecy  from  such  a 
source  commanded  respect,  and  prepared  the  way  for  renewed 
obedience  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  learned  to  look  for  wonder- 
working from  the  Lord.  Then  followed  the  divine  directions  for 
the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  at  their  right  and  front. 
The  frowning  Wall  might  continue  to  frown.  The  Lord’s  people 
should  pass  around  its  seaward  bulwarks. 

“ And  the  Angel  of  God  which  went  before  the  camp  of  Israel, 


1 Exod.  14 : 11,  12. 


3 Exod.  14 : 13,  14. 


426 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


removed  and  went  behind  them  ; and  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went 
from  before  their  face,  and  stood  behind  them : and  it  came  be- 
tween the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of  Israel ; and  it 
was  a cloud  and  darkness  [to  them],  but  it  gave  light  by  night  [to 
these].7’  “And  the  waters  were  divided.  And  the  children  of 
Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground  : and  the 
waters  were  a Wall 1 unto  them  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left. 
And  the  Egyptians  pursued  and  went  in  after  them  to  the  midst 
of  the  sea,”  2 along  that  new  Wall  Road  in  the  bed  of  Yam  Sooph, 
in  the  darkness  of  that  cloud.  It  was  as  though  a dense  fog  had 
shut  in  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians ; and  all  the  land- 
marks of  the  region  were  hidden  from  the  host  of  Pharaoh,  while 
they  were  still  clear  as  daylight  to  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
Egyptians  knew  that  the  Israelites  were  moving  off  in  their  front, 
but  they  could  not  see  whither.  They  groped  on  after  them  in  the 
cloudy  darkness,  but  without  coming  near  them  ; “ the  one  came 
not  near  the  other  all  the  night.” 

One  of  the  most  plausible  objections  that  has  been  raised  against 
the  narrative  of  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  as  it  stands  in  the 
Bible  text  is,  that  when  the  Egyptians  saw  that  the  Israelites  were 
passing  over  on  a new  made  ford,  they  would  have  been  more 
likely  to  go  with  their  chariots  around  the  head  of  the  sea,  and 
intercept  the  fugitives  on  the  other  shore,  than  foolishly  to  follow 
them  in  their  perilous  path.  But  it  is  plain  from  the  narrative,3 
that  the  Egyptians  were  following  the  Israelites  into  the  bed  of  the 
waters  without  knowing  it.  They  were  as  in  a fog,  so  that  neither 
Wall  nor  mountain  nor  shore  could  be  discerned  by  them  ; and 
the  last  thing  in  the  world  they  could  have  thought  of  as  a possi- 
bility, was  a miraculous  pathway  through  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea. 

1 In  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  (at  Exod.  14 : 22,  29)  the  word  used  for  the  water- 

walls  is  “ Shurs  ” (Chaldaic  Shooreen , the  plural  of  Shur. 

3 Exod.  14:  19-23. 


2 Exod.  14:  19-23. 


THE  GREAT  WALL  FLANKED. 


427 


It  was  enough  for  the  Egyptians  that  the  Israelites  were  unmis- 
takably moving  before  them.  Where  it  was  safe  for  Pharaoh’s 
bondsmen  to  lead,  it  ought  to  be  counted  safe  for  Pharaoh’s  chosen 
chariots  to  follow. 

And  so  the  night-march  went  on.  The  Israelites  moved  for- 
ward in  the  light.  The  Egyptians  groped  on  after  them  in  the 
bewildering  darkness  of  the  fog-like  cloud.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
that  in  the  early  morning,  after  all  that  night’s  marching  and 
groping,  when  at  last  the  Israelites  were  safe  on  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  sea,  and  the  Egyptians  were  all  unconsciously  midway  be- 
tween the  shores,  the  chariot  wheels  of  the  Egyptians  began  to  drag 
heavily,  and  to  wrench  and  yield  in  the  treacherous  sands  of  the 
bared  sea-bed ; and  at  the  same  time  the  Lord  let  in  upon  the  eyes 
of  the  folly-blinded  Egyptians  the  startling  glare  of  a preternatural 
light,  and  caused  them  to  realize  at  a glance  that  in  pursuing  the 
Israelites  they  were  encountering  Jehovah.  “ Jehovah  looked  to- 
ward the  host  of  the  Egyptians,  through  the  pillar  of  fire  and  of 
the  cloud  ; ” and  at  that  look  the  cry  of  the  appalled  and  dismayed 
pursuers  went  up  : “ Let  us  flee  from  the  face  of  Israel ; for  Jeho- 
vah fighteth  for  them  against  the  Egyptians.” 1 

But  it  was  too  late.  The  hour  of  the  Egyptians’  doom  had  come. 
There  was  no  help  in  Ba’al-Zephon.  “ Jehovah  said  unto  Moses, 
Stretch  out  thine  hand  over  the  sea,  that  the  waters  may  come  again 
upon  the  Egyptians,  upon  their  chariots,  and  upon  their  horsemen. 
And  Moses  stretched  forth  his  hand  over  the  sea  . . . and  the  waters 
returned  and  covered  the  chariots,  and  the  horsemen,  and  all  the 
host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the  sea  after  them  ; there  remained 
not  so  much  as  one  of  them.” 2 

“ Thus  Jehovah  saved  Israel  that  day  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
Egyptians.”  Thus  the  Great  Wall  of  the  Land  of  Bondage  was 
flanked,  and  Israel  went  beyond  it  into  the  Land  of  Training,  as  a 


1 Exod.  14:  24,  25. 


2 Exod.  14  : 26-28. 


428 


KA  DESII-BA  RNEA. 


nation  of  freemen.  And  Israel's  song  of  rejoicing  rang  out  in  the 
morning  air  of  the  desert : — 

“ I will  sing  to  Jehovah ; 

For  excelling,  he  hath  excelled  : 

The  horse  and  his  charioteer  hath  he  cast  into  the  sea. . . . 

“ The  chariots  of  Pharaoh  and  his  might  hath  He  cast  into  the  sea ; 
His  choice  captains  were  drowned  in  the  Weedy  Sea : 

The  deeps  covered  them  ; 

They  went  down  to  the  bottom  like  a stone. 

“Thy  right  hand,  Jehovah,  is  glorious  in  strength: 

Thy  right  hand,  Jehovah,  brake  in  pieces  the  foe  ; 

In  the  greatness  of  thy  exaltation,  thou  hast  overcome  them  that  rose 
up  against  thee : 

Thou  didst  send  forth  thy  wrath  and  it  consumed  them  like  stubble  ; 
And  with  the  breath  of  thy  nostrils,  the  waters  piled  themselves  on  high  : 
The  flowing  waters  stood  up  like  a mound : 

The  waters  were  congealed  in  the  heart  of  the  sea. 

“ Spake  the  foe : 

I will  pursue ; 

I will  overtake; 

I will  divide  the  spoil ; 

My  soul  shall  be  glutted  upon  them ; 

I will  draw  my  sword  ; 

My  hand  shall  destroy  them. 

“ Thou  didst  blow  with  thy  wind : 

The  sea  covered  them ; 

They  whirled  down  like  lead  in  the  mighty  waters. 

“Who  is  like  thee  among  the  gods,  Jehovah ? 

Who  is  like  thee,  glorious  in  holiness ; terrible  in  renown ; doing 
marvels?.  . 1 

“ So  Moses  brought  Israel  from  the  Red  Sea,  and  they  went  out 
into  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wall."2 


1 Exod.  15:  1-11. 


2 Exod.  15  : 22. 


POINTS  NOW  MADE  CLEAR . 


429 


17.  POINTS  NOW  MADE  CLEAR. 

In  view  of  all  that  this  study  of  the  route  of  the  exodus  has 
disclosed,  it  is  evident  that  several  points  which  have  been  com- 
monly overlooked  or  undervalued  in  the  biblical  narrative  and  in 
the  monumental  records,  are  of  unmistakable  importance  in  the 
resolving  of  that  route. 

1.  A prominent  feature  in  the  Bible  narrative  is  the  Great 
Wall  of  Egypt,  which  stood  as  a border  barrier  between  the  Delta 
and  the  desert,  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  the  modern  Gulf  of 
Suez.  The  existence  of  that  Wall  is  established  beyond  all  fair 
questioning.  It  was  variously  known,  by  the  Hebrew  name  of 
Shur,  by  the  Egyptian  name  of  Khetam  or  Khetamoo,  and  by  the 
Semitized  Egyptian  name  of  Etham.  The  desert  beyond  the 
Great  Wall,  eastward,  was  known  interchangeably,  as  the  Desert 
of  Shur,  and  the  Desert  of  Etham.  It  was  into  that  desert  that 
the  Israelites  made  their  exodus  from  Egypt. 

2.  There  were  three  great  highways  out  of  Egypt  eastward. 
They  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible  text  by  their  former  well-known 
descriptive  titles  : the  Road  of  the  Land  of  the  Philistines,  the 
Road  of  the  Wall,  and  the  Road  of  the  Red  Sea,  or  the  Road  of 
the  Wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea.  These  three  roads  are  clearly  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Egyptian  monumental  records.  The  face  of  the 
country  on  the  eastern  borders  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  beyond,  shows 
where  must  have  been  the  course  of  these  roads ; and  it  still  gives 
traces  of  them  severally.  The  sure  location  of  these  roads,  respect- 
ively, fixes  important  points  in  the  route  of  the  exodus. 

3.  The  numbers  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  requirements  of  the 
Bible  narrative  forbid  the  suggestion  that  any  city  or  town  was  a 
starting-point,  or  a stopping-place,  in  the  route  of  the  exodus  ; 
hence  the  hope  of  determining  that  route  by  any  discovery  of  the 
ruins  of  one  town  or  another  in  Lower  Egypt,  is  based  on  a miscon- 


430 


KADESH-BARNEA. 


ception  of  both  the  letter  and  the  general  tenor  of  the  Bible  narra- 
tive. The  Israelites  started  out  from  their  scattered  homes  in  the 
district  of  Rameses-Goshen,  and  made  their  general  rendezvous  at 
Succoth,  in  an  extensive  camping  field  along  the  line  of  lakes  of 
which  Lake  Timsah  is  the  centre.  Thence  they  moved  forward 
toward  the  Great  Wall,  and  encamped  within  it,  at  some  point  near 
the  northernmost  of  the  three  roads  desertward.  From  that  camp- 
ing-place they  were  turned  southward  nearly  the  entire  length  of 
the  Isthmus,  and  made  their  final  camp,  before  the  exodus,  at  a 
region  bounded  eastward  by  the  western  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  west- 
ward by  a prominent  watch-tower  such  as  guarded  each  of  the 
three  roadways  out  of  Egypt,  northward  by  Hahiroth,  and  south- 
ward by  an  image  or  shrine  .of  the  Semitic  Egyptian  dualistie- 
divinity  Ba’al-Set. 

4.  It  would  appear  from  the  Bible  narrative,  that  while  there  was 
haste  in  the  starting  out  of  the  Israelites  from  their  homes  in 
Rameses-Goshen  to  their  Succoth-rendezvous,  there  was  no  press- 
ing haste  in  their  subsequent  movements,  until  the  time  of  their 
midnight  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea.  The  indications  of  the  narrative 
would  point  to,  from  say  ten  to  twenty  days,  or  more,  between  the 
passover-night  and  the  night  of  the  crossing.  Moreover,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  that  justifies  the  belief  that  there  was  but  a 
day’s  journey  between  any  two  of  the  stations  named  as  the  great 
landmark  camping-places ; while  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  several  days  must  have  been  taken  in  passing  down  along  the 
Great  Wall,  from  the  encampment  near  the  Philistia  Road  to  the 
encampment  by  the  Red  Sea.  Hence,  there  can  be  no  help  to  an 
identifying  of  any  particular  site,  by  its  supposed  single  day’s  dis- 
tance from  another  site. 

5.  The  northernmost  stretch  of  the  western  arm  of  the  Red  Sea 
was  then  practically  at  the  present  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez. 
Whatever  difference  existed  must  have  been  a slight  one.  Hence 
the  last  camping-field  of  the  Israelites  must  have  been  near  the 


POINTS  NO  W MADE  CLEAR. 


431 


northern  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  as  being  near  the  exit, 
through  the  Great  Wall,  of  the  Red  Sea  Road  (which  corres- 
ponded with  the  modern  Hajj  route  into  and  over  the  Red  Sea 
desert).  The  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  must  have  been  from  that 
starting-point. 

6.  Whatever  disclosures  may  be  made  by  further  explorations 
in  the  region  of  eastern  Lower  Egypt,  must  be  studied  and  viewed 
in  the  light  of  these  facts,  which  by  the  Bible  narrative  and  the 
monumental  records  are  already  made  clear  and  definite  beyond 
a perad  venture. 


INDEXES. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


[This  list  indicates  the  particular  edition  of  each  work  from  wh^ch  citations  have  been 
made  in  this  volume.  Where  more  than  one  edition  has  been  cited,  both 
editions  are  indicated.  All  of  the  works  named  in  this  list  have 
been  given  at  first  hand.  A supplemental  list  indi- 
cates the  works  cited  at  second  hand.] 


Abulfeda : 

Descriptio  Aegypti.  Edidit,  latine 
vertit,  notas  adjecit  Johannes  Da- 
vid Michaelis.  Gottingen : 1776. 

Historia  Anteislamica.  Edidit  cum 
versione  latina,  notis  et  indici- 
bus  Henricus  Ortkobius  Fleischer. 
Leipzig:  1831. 

Tabula  Syriae;  cum  excerpto  geo- 
graphico,  ex  Ibn  01  Wardii  Geo- 
graphia  et  Historia  Natural]'.  Ed- 
idit Johannes  Jacobus  Reiskius. 
Leipzig:  1766. 

Adrichomius,  Christian*: 

Theatrum  Terrae  Sanctae  et  Biblica- 
rum  Historiarum.  Delft:  1593. 

Alford,  Henry  : 

The  Book  of  Genesis  and  part  of  the 
Book  of  Exodus.  A revised  ver- 
sion, with  marginal  references. 
London:  1872. 

Ali  Bey  el-Abassi: 

Travels  in  Morocco , Egypt,  Arabia 
and  Syria,  between  the  years  1803 
and  1807.  London : 1816. 

Asher,  A. : 

The  Itinerary  of  Rabbi  Benjamin  of 
Tudela.  2 vols.  London  and  Ber- 
lin: 1840. 

Bachiene,  Wilhelm  Albert: 

Historische  und  geographische  Be - 
schreibung  von  Palastina.  7 vols. 
Cleve  and  Leipzig:  1766-75. 

Baedeker,  K. : 

Lower  Egypt,  with  the  Fayum  and 
the  Peninsula  of  Sinai.  Leipzig  : 
1878. 

Palestine  and  Syria  ; Handbook  for 
travellers.  Leipzig : 1876. 

Bagster’s  Comprehensive  Bible.  London  : 
1846. 

Baring-Gould,  S. : 

Legends  of  the  Patriarchs  and  Pro- 
phets and  other  Old  Testament 
Characters.  New  York:  1872. 


Barker,  Christopher  : 

English  Bible.  London : 1599. 

Barrett,  Richard  A.  F. : 

A Synopsis  of  Criticism  upon  those 
Passages  in  the.Dld  Testament,  in 
which  Modern  Commentators  have 
differed  from  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. London:  1847. 

Barrows,  E.  P. : 

Sacred  Geography  and  Antiquities. 
New  York:  [s.  a.] 

Bartlett,  Samuel  C. : 

From  Egypt  to  Palestine;  Observa- 
tions of  a journey  made  with  spe- 
cial reference  to  the  history  of  the 
Israelites.  New  York  : 1879. 

Bartlett,  W.  H. : 

Forty  Days  in  the  Desert,  on  the  track 
of  the  Israelites.  London:  1851. 

Bassler,  Ferdinand  : 

Das  Heilige  Land,  und  die  angrenz- 
enden  Landschaften.  Merseburg : 
1846. 

Berchere,  N. : 

Le  Desert  de  Suez ; Cinq  mois  dans 
l’lsthme.  Paris : [ s . a.] 

Beer,  E.  F.  F. : 

Inscriptions  Veteres  litteris  et  lingua 
hucusque  incognitis  ad  montem 
Sinai  servatae.  Leipzig:  1840. 

Besant,  Walter: 

The  Life  and  Achievements  of  Ed- 
ward Henry  Palmer.  London : 
1883. 

Bible  Educator,  The.  Edited  by  the  Rev. 

E.  H.  Plumptre.  4 vols.  London, 

Paris  and  New  York:  [ s . a.] 

Birch,  S. : 

Egypt  from  the  Earliest  Times  to 
b.  c.  300.  London : 1879. 

Blunt,  Lady  Anne  : 

Bedouin  Tribes  of  the  Euphrates. 
Edited,  with  a preface,  by  W.  S.  B. 
New  York:  1879. 


435 


436 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


Bochart,  Samuel  : 

Geographia  Sacra;  seu,  Phaleg  et 
Canaan.  Leyden : 1707. 

Bonar,  Horatius  : 

Desert  of  Sinai;  Notes  of  a spring- 
journey  from  Cairo  to  Beersheba. 
London : 1857. 

Breydenbach,  Bernhard  von  : 

Itinerarium  Hierosolimi.  Spires : 
1490. 

Brown,  John  : 

A Dictionary  of  the  Holy  Bible. 
Edinburgh:  1816. 

Bruce,  James: 

Travels  to  discover  the  Sources  of  the 
Nile.  6 vols.  Dublin:  1790. 

Brugsch,  Heinrich  : 

A History  of  Egypt  under  the  Pha- 
raohs. Translated  and  edited  by 
Philip  Smith.  Second  edition. 
2 vols.  London:  1881. 

Dictionnaire  Geographique.  Leip- 
zig: 1879. 

Die  Geographic  des  Alien  TEgyptens. 
Leipzig:  1857. 

Hieroglypliisch-Demotisches  Worter- 
buch.  4 vols.  Leipzig : 1861. 

Buddeus,  Carl  Franz  : 

Historia  Ecclesiastica  Veteris  Testa- 
menti.  Halle : 1744. 

Buenting,  Heinrich  : 

Itinerarium  Sacrx  Scripturse ; dass 
ist,  Ein  Reisebuch  iiber  die  ganze 
Heilige  Schrift.  Magdeburg:  1591. 

The  Travels  of  the  Holy  Patriarchs, 
Prophets,  &c.  London : 1705. 
Bunsen,  Christian  C.  J. : 

Egypt’s  Place  in  Universal  History. 
5 vols.  London:  1848. 

Bunsen,  Ernest  de  : 

The  Chronology  of  the  Bible;  Con- 
nected with  contemporaneous 
events  in  the  history  of  Babylon- 
ians, Assyrians  and  Egyptians. 
London:  i874. 

Burckhardt,  Johann  Ludwig: 

Bemerkungen  iiber  die  Beduinen  und 
Wahaby.  Gesammelt  wahrend  sei- 
nen  Reisen  im  Morgenlande.  Wei- 
mar: 1831. 

Travels  in  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land. 
London:  1822. 

Burton,  Richard  F. : 

A Pilgrimage  to  El-Medinah  and 
Meccah.  American  edition.  New 
York : 1856. 

The  Gold  Mines  of  Midian,  and  the 
Ruined  Midianite  Cities;  A fort- 
night’s tour  in  North-Western  Ara- 
bia. Second  edition.  London:  1878. 

Burton  and  Drake  : 

Unexplored  Syria ; Visits  to  the  Li- 
banus,  the  Tulul  el  Saf&,  the  Anti- 
Libanus,  the  Northern  Libanus, 
and  the  ’Aldh.  2 vols.  London : 
1872. 


Bush,  George  : 

Notes,  Critical  and  Practical,  on  the 
Book  of  Genesis.  Ninth  edition. 
2 vols.  New  York:  1850. 

Notes,  Critical  and  Practical,  on  the 
Book  of  Numbers.  Chicago:  1881. 
Buxtorf,  Johann  : 

Lexicon  Chaldaicum,  Talmudicum, 
et  Rabbinicum.  Edidit  Johannes 
Buxtorfius,  filius.  Basle:  1640. 
Synagoga  Judaica ; hoc  est,  Schola 
Jucheorum.  Hanau : 1604. 
Calmet,  Augustin  : 

Great  Dictionary  of  the  Holy  Bible. 
Revised,  corrected,  and  augmented 
under  the  direction  of  C.  Taylor. 
American  edition.  Charlestown : 
1813. 

Castellus,  Edmund  : 

Lexicon  Syriacum,  ex  eius  Lexico 
Heptaglotto.  Adnotata  adjecit  Jo- 
hannes David  Micliaelis.  Gottin- 
gen: 1787. 

Castillo,  F.  Antonio  del  : 

El  devoto  Peregrino ; Viage  de  Tierra 
Santa.  Madrid:  1666. 

Catafago,  Joseph  : 

An  English  and  Arabic  Dictionary. 
In  two  parts.  London : 1858. 
Cellarius,  Christopher  : 

Notitia  Orbis  Antiqui;  sive,  Geo- 
graphia  Plenior.  2 vols.  Leipzig  : 
1731. 

Chabas,  F. : 

Etudes  sur  V Antique  Histoir  e,  d'  apres 
les  sources  Egyptiennes.  Second 
edition.  Paris : 1873. 

Les  Inscriptions  des  Mines  d’  Or ; Dis- 
sertation sur  les  textes  Egyptiens. 
Paris:  1862. 

Champollion,  Jean  Francois  : 

Egypte  sous  les  Pharaons.  Paris:  1814. 
Clark,  Samuel  : 

The  Bible  Atlas.  With  an  index  of 
geographical  names,  by  George 
Grove.  London : 1868. 

Coleman,  Lyman  : 

Historical  Geography  of  the  Bible. 
Philadelphia:  1850. 

Colenso,  John  William: 

The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua 
Critically  Examined.  New  York : 
1866. 

Conder,  Claude  Regnier  : 

Tent  Work  in  Palestine ; A record  of 
discovery  and  adventure.  2 vols. 
New  York:  1878. 

Conder,  F.  R.,  and  Conder,  C.  R. : 

A Handbook  to  the  Bible;  A guide 
to  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
New  York  : [s.  a.] 

Cory,  Isaac  Preston: 

Ancient  Fragments  of  the  Phoenician, 
Carthaginian,  Babylonian,  Egypt- 
ian and  other  authors.  Edited  by  E. 
Richmond  Hodges.  London:  1876. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


437 


Crilici  Sacri;  sive,  Doctissimorum  Vi- 
rorum  in  SS.  Biblia  Annotationes  et 
Tractatus.  9 vols.  London : 1660. 

Crosby,  Howard  : 

Expository  Notes  on  the  Book  oj 
Joshua.  New  York,  1875. 

Lands  of  the  Moslem ; A narrative 
of  oriental  travel,  by  “ El-Mukat- 
tem.’'  New  York  : 1851. 

Cuche,  R.  P. : T . 

Jesuits 1 French  Arabic  Lexicon.  Bay- 
root:  1862. 


Curtius,  Q.  Rufus  : 

De  Rebus  Gestis  Alexandri  Magm 
libri  qui  supersunt  octo.  Edidit 
Georg  iEnotheus  Koch.  Leipzig : 
1849. 


Dapper,  O. : 

Naukeurige  Beschryving  van  gantsch 
Syrie,  en  Palestyn  of  Ileilige  Lant. 
Amsterdam : 1677. 


Delitzsch,  Franz  : 

Conimentar  uber  die  Genesis.  Leip- 
zig: 1872. 

De  Roug£,  Olivier  Charles  : 

Le  Poeme  de  Pen- Ta- Our.  Lyons: 
1858. 


De  Saulcy,  F. : 

Narrative  of  a Journey  round  the 
Bead  Sea  and  in  Bible  Lands,  in 
1850  and  1851.  2 vols.  Philadel- 
phia : 1854. 

Description  de  VEgypte,  Recueil  des  ob- 
servations et  des  recherches  qui  ont 
6te  faites  en  Egypte  pendant  l’ex- 
pedition  de  l’armee  Francaise.  20 
vols..  Paris : 1809—1822.  Also, 
24  vols.  Paris : 1816. 

Dieterich,  Johann  Conrad: 

Antiquitates  Biblicae.  Publicatse  a 
Johanne  Justo  Pistorio.  Giessen: 
1671. 


Diodorus  Siculus  : 

Bibliothecae  Historicae  quae  super- 
sunt. 6 vols.  Leipzig : 1829. 
Drew,  C.  S. : 

Scripture  Lands , in  connection  with 
their  history.  London:  1871. 
Dulles,  John  W. : 

The  Ride  Through  Palestine.  Phila- 
delphia : 1881. 

Durbin,  John  P. : 

Observations  in  the  East;  Chiefly  in 
Egypt,  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Asia 
Minor.  Ninth  edition.  2 vols. 
New  York:  1851. 

Ebers,  Georg  : 

JEgypten  und  die  Bucher  Mose’s; 
Conimentar  zu  den  iEgyptischen 
Stellen  in  Genesis  und  Exodus. 
Leipzig:  1858. 

Durch  Gosen  zum  Sinai ; aus  dem 
Wanderbuch  und  der  Bibliothek. 
Leipzig:  1881. 


Egypt : Descriptive,  Historic  and 
Picturesque.  Translated  from  the 
German  by  Clara  Bell.  Edited  by 
Samuel  Birch.  2 vols.  London 
and  New  York.  1881. 

Ebn  Haukal: 

Oriental  Geography.  Edited  by  Wil- 
liam Ousely.  London:  1800. 
Edersheim,  Alfred  : 

The  Exodus  and  the  Wanderings  in 
the  Wilderness.  London : [5.  a.] 
The  Temple  ; Its  ministry  and  service, 
as  they  were  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
Christ.  London:  1874. 

Edwards,  Amelia  B. : 

A Thousand  Miles  up  the  Nile.  Lon- 
don : 1877. 

Encyclopaedia  Britannica ; A Diction- 
ary of  Arts,  Sciences,  and  General 
Literature.  Ninth  edition.  Ameri- 
can reprint.  Philadelphia:  1875 — 
Englishman’s  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  Con- 
cordance of  the  Old  Testament.  2 vols. 
London:  1874. 

Eusebius,  Pamphili  : 

Onomasticon  Urbium  et  Locorum  Sa- 
crae  Scripturae.  Cum  latina  in- 
terpretatione  Hieronymi.  Edide- 
runt  F.  Larsow  et  G.  Parthey. 
Berlin:  1862. 

Ewald,  Heinrich  : 

The  History  of  Israel.  Translated 
from  the  German.  Edited  by  Rus- 
sell Martineau.  6 vols.  London : 
1876. 

Fabri,  Felix: 

Evagatorium  in  Terrae  Sanctae,  Ara- 
biae  et  Egypti  Peregrationem. 

3 vols.  Stuttgart : 1843. 
Fairbairn,  Patrick  : 

The  Imperial  Bible  Dictionary. 

2 vols,  London  : 1867. 

FAUSSET,  A.  R : 

The  Englishman’s  Critical  and  Ex- 
pository Cyclopaedia.  Philadelphia. 
1878. 

Field,  Henry  M. : 

On  the  Desert;  With  a brief  review 
of  recent  events  in  the  East.  New 
York:  1883. 

Fikry,  Muhammad  Ameen: 

Jeogrdfeeah  Misr.  Cairo:  A.  H. 
1296. 

Formby,  Henry  M. : 

A Visit  to  the  East ; Comprising  Ger- 
many and  the  Danube,  Constan- 
tinople, Asia  Minor.  Egypt  and 
Idumea.  London : 1843. 

Foster,  Charles  : 

Israel  in  the  Wilderness ; or,  Glean- 
ings from  the  scenes  of  the  Wan- 
derings. London : 1865. 

The  Historical  Geography  of  Arabia  ; 
or,  The  patriarchal  evidences  of  re- 
vealed religion  2 vols.  London : 
1844. 


438 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED . 


Freytag,  G.  W. : 

Lexicon  Arabico-Latinum.  Halle: 
1837. 

Fuerer,  Christopher  : 

Reis-Beschreibung  in  Egypten,  Ara- 
bien,  Palastinam,  Syrien,  etc.  Nu- 
remberg : first  edition,  1565-67 ; 
second  edition,  1646. 

Fuerst,  Julius: 

Hebrdisches  und  Chaldaisches  Hand- 
worterbuch.  Leipzig : 1857. 

A Hebrew  and  Chaldee  Lexicon  to  the 
Old  Testament.  Translated  from 
the  German  by  Samuel  Davidson. 
New  York:  1867. 

Illustrated  Bible.  Leipzig:  1869. 

Librorum  Sacrorum  Veteris  Testa- 
menti  Concordantiae  Ilebraicae  at- 
que  Chaldaicae.  Leipzig:  1840. 
Geddes,  Alexander: 

The  Holy  Bible ; the  Books  accounted 
sacred  by  the  Jews.  London  : 1792. 

Geikie,  Cunningham  : 

Hours  with  the  Bible  ; or,  The  Scrip- 
tures in  the  light  of  modern  dis- 
covery and  knowledge.  Yols.  I. 
and  II.  New  York:  1881. 

Gesta  Dei  Per  Francos;  sive,  Oriental- 

ium  Expeditionum,  et  Regni  Fran- 
corum  Hierosolimitani  Historia.  A 
variis scriptoribus.  Hanover:  1611. 

Gesenius,  Wilhelm: 

A Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Translated  and 
edited  by  Edward  Robinson.  Bos- 
ton, 1881. 

Hebrdisches  und  Chaldaisches  Hand- 
worterbuch.  Edited  by  F.  Miihlau 
and  W.  Volck.  Leipzig,  1878. 

Hebrew  Grammar.  Enlarged  by  E. 
Rodiger.  Re-edited  by  B.  David- 
son. London  : 1852. 

Thesaurus  philologicus  criticus  Lin- 
guae Hebraeae  et  Chaldaeae  Vete- 
ris Testamenti.  Leipzig:  1829-42. 

GRAETZ,  H. : 

Geschichte  der  Juden,  von  den  alte- 
sten  Zeiten  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart. 
Yol.  I.  Leipzig:  1874. 

Greene,  J.  Baker: 

The  Hebrew  Migration  from  Egypt. 
London:  1879. 

Hackett,  Horatio  B.: 

Illustrations  of  Scripture,  suggested 
by  a tour  through  the  Holy  Land. 
Boston:  1860. 

nAHN,  August  : 

Biblia  Hehraica  Secundum  edi- 
tiones  Jos.  Athiae,  J.  Leusden, 
J.  Simonis  aliorumque,  imprimis 
Everardi  van  der  Hooght.  Phila- 
delphia: 1868. 

Hamburger,  J. : 

Real-Encyclopadie  fur  Bibcl  und 
Talmud.  Abtheilung  I.  Die  bi- 
blischen  Artikel.  Strelitz:  1870. 


Harman,  Thomas  : 

Observations  on  Various  Passages  of 
Scripture,  placing  them  in  a new 
light,  and  ascertaining  the  mean- 
ing of  several.  Edited  by  Adam 
Clarke.  Fifth  edition.  4 vols. 
London:  1816. 

Harvard  University  Bulletin.  Cam- 
bridge: 1883. 

Hasius,  Johann  Matthias: 

Regni  Davidi  et  Salomon  cei  Descrip- 
tio  Geographica  et  Historica.  Nur- 
emberg: 1739. 

Heidmann,  Christopher  : 

Palsestina;  sive,  Terra  Sanctapaucis 
capitibus  explicata.  [$.  7.]  : 1665. 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W. : 

Commentary  on  Ezekiel.  Edinburgh : 
1869. 

Die  Authentic  des  Pentateuch.  2 vols. 
Berlin : 1839. 

Henniker,  Frederic  : 

Notes  during  a Visit  to  Egypt,  Nubia , 
Sinai , and  Jerusalem.  London: 
1824. 

Herodotus  [Porsoni] : 

Opera.  Ex  edition ibUs  Wesselingii 
et  Reizii.  4 vols.  Edinburgh : 
1806. 

Herzog,  J.  J. : 

Real-Encyclopadie  fur  Protestant- 
ische  Theologie  und  Kirche.  Leip- 
zig: 1877. 

Hillerus : 

Onomasticon  Sacrum.  Tubingen: 
1826. 

Hitzig,  Ferdinand  : 

Der  Prophet  Ezekiel  erklart.  Leip- 
zig: 1847. 

Homann,  Johann  Baptiste  : 

Atlas  Novus ; Terrarum  Orbis  Impe- 
ria,  etc.  Nuremberg  : 1707. 

Horsley,  Samuel  : 

Biblical  Criticism  on  the  First  Four- 
teen Historical  Books  and  the  First 
Nine  Prophetical  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  4 vols.  London : 1820. 

Houghton,  W. : 

Gleanings  from  the  Natural  History 
of  the  Ancients.  London,  Paris, 
and  New  York:  [5.  a.] 

Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  proceed- 
ings of,  with  abstracts  of  the  dis- 
cussion. Session  1850-51.  Lon- 
don: 1851. 

Institution  of  Mechanical  Engineers, 

proceedings  of.  London  : 1867. 

Jacobson  and  Bouwenszoon  : 

Dutch  Bible.  Leyden : 1596. 

Jerome  [Eusebius  Hieronymus  Sophro- 
nius] : 

Onomasticon.  Interpretatio  latina, 
cum  notis.  Ediderunt  F.  Larsow 
ct  G.  Parthey,  Berlin : 1862. 

Opera  Omnia.  Paris:  1546. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


439 


Vita  S.  Hilarionis  Eremitae.  In 
Migne’s  Patrologia  Latina.  Paris  : 

1865. 

Jessup,  H.  H. : 

Syrian  Home  Life.  New  York  : 1874. 

Joanne  and  Isambert  : 

Itineraire  descriptif,  historique  ct 
archeologique  de  V Orient.  Paris  : 
1861. 

Johnston,  Alexander  Keith  : 

The  Royal  Atlas  of  Modern  Geogra- 
phy. Edinburgh  and  London : 1882. 

Josephus,  Flavius: 

Opera  Omnia.  Ab  Immanuele  Bek- 
kero  recognita.  6 vols.  Leipzig : 
1855. 

Genuine  Works , including  the  Jew- 
ish War,  the  Jewish  Antiquities, 
etc.  Translated  by  William  Whis- 
ton.  Edited  by  Samuel  Burder. 
Philadelphia : [s.  a.] 

Juda,  Leo: 

Bible.  Tiguri : 1550. 

Justinian,  Imperator: 

Institutionum  Libri  III1.  Amster- 
dam : 1638. 

Kalisch,  M.  M. : 

Historical  and  Exegetical  Commen- 
tary on  the  Old  Testament.  Lon- 
don : 1858. 

Keil,  Karl  Friedrich  : 

Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Pro- 
phecies of  Ezekiel.  Edinburgh : 

1866. 

Ilandbuch  der  Biblischen  Arch'dolo- 
gie.  Frankfort : 1875. 

Keil  and  Delitzsch  : 

Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Translated  from  the  Ger- 
man by  James  Martin.  The  Pen- 
tateuch. 3 vols.  Edinburgh  : 1878- 
1880.  Joshua,  Judges  and  Ruth. 
1 vol.  Edinburgh : 1880. 

Kenrick,  John: 

The  Egypt  of  Herodotus.  With  notes 
and  preliminary  dissertations. 
London:  1841. 

Kitto,  John: 

A Cyclopxdia  of  Biblical  Literature. 
Edited  by  W.  L.  Lindsay.  Third 
Edition.  Edinburgh:  1862. 

Scripture  Lands  Described  in  a Series 
of  Historical,  Geographical  and 
Topographical  Sketches.  London : 
1850. 

The  Illustrated  Family  Bible.  With 
introduction  by  T.  R.  Birks.  Lon- 
don : [s.  a ] 

Klunziger,  C.  B. : 

Upper  Egypt;  Its  people  and  its  pro- 
ducts. New  York:  1878. 

Knobel,  August  : 

Kurzgefasstes  Exegetisches  nand- 
buch  zum  Alten  Testament.  Die 
Bucher  Numeri,  Deuteronomium 
und  Joshua.  Leipzig:  1861. 


Kurtz,  J.  H. : 

History  of  Old  Covenant.  Trans- 
lated from  the  German  and  edited 
by  Alfred  Edersheim.  Second  edi- 
tion. 3 vols.  Edinburgh  : 1870-72. 

Laborde,  L£on  de  : 

Commentaire  Geographique  sur 
PExode  et  les  Nombres.  Paris 
and  Leipzig:  1841. 

Voyage  de  V Arabic  Petree.  Paris : 
1830. 1 

A Journey  through  Arabia  Petr  sea,  to 
Mount  Sinai  and  the  City  of  Petra. 
London:  1836. 

Lane,  Edward  William  : 

An  Arabic- English  Lexicon.  Lon- 
don : 1867. 

The  Thousand  and  One  Nights  En- 
tertainments. A new  translation 
from  the  Arabic.  Edited  by  Ed- 
ward Stanley  Poole.  London : 1877. 

Lane-Poole,  Stanley  : 

Egypt.  London : 1881. 

Lee,  Samuel  : 

The  Peshitto  Syriac.  London : 1873. 

Leeser,  Isaac  : 

The  Holy  Scriptures  carefully  trans- 
lated. Philadelphia : 1853. 

Lenormant,  Francois  : 

The  Beginnings  of  History,  accord- 
ing to  the  Bible  and  the  traditions 
of  Oriental  peoples.  Translated 
from  the  second  French  edition. 
New  York : 1882. 

Lenormant  and  Chevallier  : 

A Manual  of  the  Ancient  History  of 
the  East,  to  the  commencement 
of  the  Median  wars.  New  edition. 
2 vols.  Philadelphia:  1871. 

Lepsius,  Richard  : 

Denkmaler  aus  TEgygten  und  JEthi- 
opien.  Berlin : 1853-57. 

Discoveries  in  Egypt,  Ethiopia,  and 
the  Peninsula  of  Sinai.  Edited  by 
K.  R.  H.  Mackenzie.  London : 
1852. 

Ueber  den  ersten  AEgyptischen  Gotter- 
kreis.  Berlin:  1851. 

Letteris,  Myer  Levi  : 

The  Hebrew  Bible,  with  key  to  the 
Massoretic  notes.  New  York:  1882. 

Leusden,  Johann: 

Onomasticon  Sacrum.  Leyden  : 1684. 

Lidenthal,  De  Sola  and  Raphall  : 

The  Holy  Scriptures  in  Hebrew  and 
English.  London : 1844. 

Lightfoot,  John  : 

Horse  Hebraicx  et  Talmudicx  ; He- 
brew and  Talmudical  exercitations 

upon  the  Gospels,  &c.  Edited  by 

Robert  Gandell.  4 vols.  Oxford: 

1859. 

Lindsay,  Lord  : 

Letters  on  Egypt,  Edom,  and  the 
Holy  Land.  Second  edition. 

2 vols.  London  : 1838. 


440 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


Loftus.  William  Kennett: 

Kedur-Mapula , or  Chedor-laomer ; 
Travels  and  researches  in  Chaldea 
and  Susiana.  New  York  : 1857. 

Ludwig  Salvator,  Archduke  : 

The  Caravan  Route  between  Egypt 
and  Syria.  Translated  from  the 
German.  London : 1881. 

Luther,  Martin  : 

Die  Libel ; oder,  Die  ganze  Heilige 
Schrift.  New  York:  1859. 

Lynch,  W.  F. : 

Narrative  of  the  United  States  Ex- 
pedition to  the  River  Jordan  and 
the  Red  Sea.  Philadelphia : 1849. 

MACGREGOR,  J.  : 

The  Rob  Roy  on  the  Jordan , Nile, 
and  Red  Sea.  New  York  : 1870. 

Mariette,  Auguste  : 

The  Monuments  of  Upper  Egypt. 
Translated  from  the  French  by- 
Alphonse  Mariette.  Alexandria, 
Cairo  and  London  : 1877. 

Martineau,  Harriet: 

Eastern  Life,  Present  and  Past. 
Philadelphia:  1848. 

McCauley,  E.  Y. : 

Dictionary  of  Egyptian  Hieroglyph- 
ics. Philadelphia : 1883. 

McClintock  and  Strong  : 

Cyclopxdia  of  Biblical,  Theological 
and  Ecclesiastical  Literature.  10 
vols.  New  York  : 1877. 

McCoan,  J.  C. : 

Egypt  as  It  Is.  New  York  : 1877. 

Memoir es  sur  VEgypte.  Publies  pendant 

les  Campagnes  du  General  Bonaparte 
4 vols.  Paris : 1800-1803. 

Memoirs  Relative  to  Egypt.  Written  in 

that  country  during  the  Campaigns 
of  General  Bonaparte.  Translated 
from  the  French.  London : 1800. 

Menke,  Theodor  : 

Bibelatlas  in  aeht  Blattern.  Gotha  : 
1868. 

Mercator,  Gerard  : 

Atlas  Minor.  Amsterdam  : 1614. 

Atlas  Major.  Amsterdam : 1633. 

Merrill,  Selah  : 

East  of  the  Jordan;  A record  of 
travel  and  observation  in  the  coun- 
tries of  Moab,  Gilead  and  Bashan. 
New  York:  1881. 

Michaud,  Joseph  F. : 

History  of  the  Crusades.  Translated 
by  W.  Robson.  3 vols.  New 
York:  1881. 

Mills,  Charles  : 

The  History  of  the  Crusades  for  the 
recovery  and  possession  of  the 
Holy  Land.  2 vols.  London : 
1828. 

Mills,  John: 

Three  months ’ Residence  at  Nablus, 
and  an  account  of  the  Modern 
Samaritans.  London  : 1864. 


Milman,  Henry  Hart  : 

The  History  of  the  Jews  from  the 
earliest  period  down  to  the  pre- 
sent time.  Reprinted  from  re- 
vised London  Edition.  2 vols. 
New  York : 1883. 

Mischna;  sive,  Totius  Hebraeorum  Ju- 
ris, Rituum,  Antiquitatum,  Legum 
Systema.  Cum  commentariisMai- 
monidis  et  Bartenorae.  Amster- 
dam: 1648-1703. 

Monconys,  Balthasar  : 

Beschreibung  seiner  in  Asien  und 
das  gelobie  Land,  u.  d.  a.,  Reisen. 
Aus  der  Frantzosischen  iibersetzet 
von  Christian  Juncker.  Leipzig : 
1697. 

Mueller,  P.  A. : 

Fremdling  zu  Jerusalem.  Vienna 
and  Nuremberg:  1735. 

Muenster,  Sebastian: 

Cosmographie ; oder,  Beschreibung 
aller  Lander.  Basle : 1850. 

Cosmographwe  Geographiae  Univer- 
salis Liber.  Basle : 1574. 

Murphy,  James  G. : 

A Critical  and  Exegetical  Commen- 
tary on  the  Book  of  Genesis,  with 
a new  translation.  With  intro- 
duction by  Alvah  Hovey.  Boston : 

1873. 

A Critical  and  Exegetical  Commen- 
tary on  the  Book  of  Exodus. 
With  a new  translation.  Boston  : 

1874. 

Murray's  Hand-Book  for  Travelers  in 

Syria  and  Palestine , including  an 
account  of  the  geography,  etc., 
of  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  Edom, 
and  the  Syrian  Desert.  New  and 
revised  edition.  London  : 1875. 

Neubauer,  Adolphe  : 

La  Geographic  du  Talmud.  Memoire 
couronne.  Paris : 1868. 

Newnham,  W.  H: 

Illustrations  of  the  Exodus.  London 
and  Paris : 1830. 

Niebuhr,  Carlsten: 

Beschreibung  von  Arabien,  aus  eige- 
nen  Beobachtungen  und  im  Lande 
selbst  gesammleten  Nachrichten. 
Copenhagen:  1772. 

Reisebeschreibung  nach  Arabien  und 
andern  umliegenden  Landern.  Co- 
penhagen: 1774. 

Reisen  durch  Syrien  und  Palastina 
nach  Cypern.  Herausgegeben  von 
J.  N.  Gloyer  und  F.  Olshausen. 
Hamburg:’  1837. 

Niebuhr,  Marcus  von  : 

Geschichte  Assur’s  und  Babel's  seit 
Phul.  Berlin : 1857. 

Olin,  Stephen  : 

Travels  in  Egypt,  Arabia  Petrsea,  and 
the  Holy  Land.  2 vols.  New 
York : 1843. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


441 


Oliphant,  Lawrence  : 

The  Land  of  Gilead,  with  excursions 
in  the  Lebanon.  New  York:  1881. 

Ortelius  : 

Theutrum  Orb  is  Terr  arum.  Ant- 
werp : 1870. 

OSCANYAN,  O.  : 

The  Saltan  and  His  People.  New 
York:  1857. 

Otho,  Johann  : 

Lexicon  Rabbinicum  Philologicum. 
Geneva : 1675. 

Oxford  University  Press  Bible,  Oxford  : 

[s.  aj 

Paine,  Caroline  : 

Tent  and  Harem  ; Notes  of  an  Orien- 
tal trip.  New  York:  1859. 

Palfrey,  John  Gorham  : 

Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Scriptures  and 
Antiquities.  Yol.  I.  Boston:  1838. 

Palmer,  Edward  Henry  : 

The  Desert  of  the  Exodus;  Jour- 
neys on  foot  in  the  Wilderness 
of  the  Forty  Years’  Wanderings. 

Palmer,  Henry  Spencer  : 

Sinai,  from  the  fourth  Egyptian 
dynasty  to  the  present  day.  Lon- 
don: 1878. 

Patrick,  Simon: 

A Commentary  upon  the  Fourth  Book 
of  Moses,  commonly  called  Num- 
bers. London  : 1699. 

Perizonius,  Jacobus  : 

JEgyptiarum  Originum  et  Tempo- 
ram  Antiquissimorum  Investiga- 
te. Leyden:  1711. 

Philo  Judaeus: 

Omnia  quae  exstant  Opera.  Edide- 
runt  Sigismundius  Gelenius,  Adri- 
anus  Turnebus  et  Davidus  Hoe- 
schelius.  Frankfort : 1691. 

PlEROTTI,  ERNESTI  : 

Customs  and  Traditions  of  Palestine, 
illustrating  the  manners  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews.  Translated  by 
T.  S.  Bonney.  Cambridge  and 
London : 1864. 

PlfCTREMENT,  C.  A. : 

Les  Origines  du  Cheval  Domestique, 
d’apres  la  paleontologie,  la  zoologie, 
l’histoire  et  la  philologie.  Paris  : 
1870. 

Pitt,  Joseph  : 

A Faithful  Account  of  the  Religion 
and  Manners  of  the  Mahometans. 
Fourth  edition.  London  : 1810. 

Plantin,  Christopher: 

Latin  Bible.  Antwerp  : 1583. 

Pliny  [Caius  Plinius  Secundus]: 

Historia  Naturalis.  EdiditL.  Januo. 
Leipzig:  1856. 

Plutarch  : 

Moralia.  6 vols.  Leipzig:  1847. 

Pococke,  Richard  : 

A Description  of  the  East  and  some 
other  countries  2 vols.  London: 
1743. 


Pool,  Matthew  : 

Annotations  upon  the  Holy  Bible, 
wherein  the  sacred  text  is  inserted, 
and  various  readings  annexed. 

3 vols.  New  York  : 1880. 
Synopsis  Criticorum,  Aliorumque 
Sanctse  Scripturae  Interpretum.  3 
vols.  London : 1669. 

Poole,  Reginald  Stuart  : 

The  Cities  of  Egypt.  London : 1882. 

Porter,  J.  L. : 

Giant  Cities  of  Bashan,  and  Syria’s 
Holy  Places.  New  York : 1866. 

Prideaux,  Humphrey  : 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments  Connect- 
ed, in  the  history  of  the  Jews  and 
neighboring  nations.  Fourteenth 
edition.  4 vols.  Edinburgh:  1779. 

Prime,  William  C. : 

Boat  Life  in  Egypt  and  Nubia.  New 
York:  1864. 

Ptolemy  [Claudius  Ptolemseus] : 

Geographia.  Edidit  Carolus  Fredi- 
ricus  Augustus  Nobbe.  Stereotype 
edition.  3 vols.  Leipzig:  1845. 
Quaresmius,  Franciscus  : 

Historica,  Theologica,  et  Moral  is  Ter- 
rx  Sanctx  Elucidatio.  Antwerp  : 
1639. 

Queen's  Printers'  Aids,  to  the  Student  of 
the  Holy  Bible.  London,  Edinburgh 
and  New  York:  [s.  a.] 

Quran:  Alcorani  textus  universus,  ex 
correctioribus  Arabum  exemplaribus 
summa  fide  atque  pulcherrimis 
characteribus  descriptus,  et  in  lati- 
num  translates  a Ludovico  Mar- 
raccio.  Padua:  1698. 

Rawlinson,  George  : 

Histories  of  Herodotus.  New  York  : 
1859. 

History  of  Ancient  Egypt.  2 vols. 
New  York:  1882. 

The  Five  Great  Monarchies  of  the 
Eastern  World.  Second  edition. 
3 vols.  New  York:  1883. 

The  Origin  of  Nations.  New  York : 
1878. 

Raleigh,  Walter  : 

The  History  of  the  World.  London  : 
1614. 

“ Rasiii  ” [Solomon  ben  Isaac] : 

’ Al  ha-Torah.  5 vols.  Prag:  1833. 

Records  of  the  Past;  English  translations 
of  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  Mon- 
uments. Published  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Society  of  Biblical 
Archaeology.  Yols.  I.,  II.,  III., 
IV.,  VI.,  VIII.,  X.,  XI.,  XII. 
London : [s.  a.] 

Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  A narrative 
of  exploration  and  discovery  in  the 
city  and  the  Holy  Land.  By 
Capt.  Wilson,  Capt.  Warren  and 
others.  Edited  by  Walter  Morrison. 
With  appendix  by  F.  W.  Holland. 
London  : 1871. 


442 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


Reineccius,  Christian  : 

Biblia  Sacra  Quadrilinguia.  3 vols. 
Leipzig:  1750. 

Reissbuch  des  Heiligen  Lands  ; oder,  Eine 

griindliche  Beschreibung  aller  Meer 
und  Pilgerfalirten  zum  Heiligen 
Lande.  Nuremburg:  1659. 

Reland,  Adrian  : 

Palxstina  ex  Monumentis  Yeteribus 
illustrata.  Utrecht : 1714. 

Renouf,  P.  Le  Page  : 

An  Elementary  Grammar  of  the  An- 
cient Egyptian  Language , in  the 
hieroglyphic  type.  London:  1875. 

The  Origin  and.  Growth  of  Religion 
as  illustrated  by  the  religion  of 
ancient  Egypt.  New  York:  1880. 

Rtjssegger,  Joseph: 

Reisen  in  Europa,  Aden  und  Afrika. 
Stuttgart:  1846-49. 

Reuss,  Edouard  : 

La  Bible.  3 vols.  l’Histoire  Sainte. 
Strassburg : [$.  a.] 

Riehm,  C.  August  : 

Handworterbuch  des  biblischen  Al- 
terthums,  fur  gebildete  Bibelleser. 
Bielesfeld  and  Leipzig : 1878. 

Ritt,  Olivier  : 

Histoire  de  Vlsthme  de  Suez.  Paris : 
1869. 

Ritter,  Carl: 

The  Comparative  Geography  of  Pal- 
estine and  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula. 
Translated  by  W.  L.  Gage.  4 vols. 
New  York : 1870. 

Roberts,  J. : 

Oriental  Illustrations  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  London : 1843. 

Robinson,  Edward  : 

Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine, 
Mount  Sinai  and  Arabia  Petraea ; A 
journey  of  travels  by  E.  Robinson 
and  E.  Smith.  3 vols.  Boston : 1841. 

Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  and 
the  adjacent  regions.  Eleventh 
edition.  3 vols.  Boston : 1874. 

Roger,  Eugene: 

La  Terre  Sainte.  Paris : 1664. 

Rosellini,  Ippolito  : 

I Monumenti  delVEgito  e della  Nubia. 
10  vols.  Pisa:  1832-40. 

Rosenmueller,  Ernst  F.  K. : 

Biblische  Geographie.  Leipzig:  1823. 

Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum. 
Leipzig:  1795. 

Handbuch  d,er  biblischen  Alterthums- 
kunde.  2 vols.  Leipzig : 1825. 

Rovillius  : 

French  Bible.  Lyons : 1569. 

Rueokert,  K.  Tit.: 

Reise  durch  Paldstina  und  iiber  den 
Libanon.  Mainz:  1881. 

Rueppell,  Edward  : 

Reisen  in  Nubien , Kordofan  und 
dem  petraischen  Arabien.  Frank- 
furt am  Main : 1829. 


Sale,  George : 

The  Koran , commonly  called  the 
Alcoran  of  Mohammed.  With  ex- 
planatory notes.  Sixth  edition. 
Philadelphia:  1876. 

Sanson,  Nicholas: 

Atlas.  Paris : 1664. 

Santander : 

Latin  Bible.  Lyons : 1574. 

Schaff,  Philip  : 

Through  Bible  Lands;  Notes  of 
travel  in  Egypt,  the  Desert,  and 
Palestine.  New  York:  1878. 

Schaff-Bissell  : 

The  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament. 
With  historical  introductions,  a re- 
vised translation,  and  notes  critical 
and  explanatory.  New  York:  1880. 

Sckaff-Lange  : 

A Commentary  on  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, Critical,  Doctrinal,  and 
Homiletical.  Genesis  Ruth.  4 
vols.  New  York : 1869-1875. 

Schleiden,  M.  J. : 

Die  Landenge  von  Sues.  Zur  Beur- 
theilung  des  Canalprojects  und 
des  Auszugs  der  Israeliten  aus 
Aegypten.  Leipzig : 1858. 

Schroder,  Paul : 

Die  Phonizische  Sprache.  Halle : 
1869. 

Schwarz,  Joseph  : 

A Descriptive  Geography  and  Brief 
Historical  Sketch  of  Palestine. 
Translated  by  Isaac  Leeser.  Phil- 
adelphia: 1850. 

SCHWEIGGER,  SALOMON : 

Ein  neue  Reiss-Beschreibung  aus 
Teutschland  nach  Constantinopel 
und  Jerusalem.  Nuremberg:  1639. 

Seetzen,  Ulrich  Jasper: 

Reisen  durch  Syrien,  Palastina, 
Phonicien,  die  Transjordan-Lander 
Arabia  Petraea  und  Unter- Aegyp- 
ten. Herausgaben  und  commen- 
tirt  von  Professor  Kruse.  4 vols. 
Berlin  : 1854. 

Selden,  John: 

De  Dis  Syriis.  Second  edition. 
Leyden : 1629. 

Selfisch  and  Bechtold: 

Latin  Bible.  1591. 

Sharpe,  Samuel  : 

Hebrew  Inscriptions  from  the  valleys 
between  Egypt  and  Mount  Sinai. 
London : 1875. 

The  History  of  Egypt,  from  the  ear- 
liest times  to  the  conquest  by  the 
Arabs.  2 vols.  London:  1876. 

The  Hebrew  Scriptures  Translated. 
3 vols.  London : 1865. 

Shaw,  Thomas  : 

Travels ; or,  Observations  relating  to 
several  parts  of  Barbary  and  the 
Levant.  Second  edition.  London  : 
1757. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


443 


Simon,  Johann  : 

Onomasticon  Veteris  Testament i. 
Halle:  1740. 

Smith,  George  : 

The  Chaldaic  Account  of  Genesis. 
London:  1876. 

Smith,  Philip  : 

The  Ancient  History  of  the  East , 
from  the  earliest  times  to  the  con- 
quest by  Alexander  the  Great.  (Stu- 
dents’edition.)  New  York:  1879. 

Smith,  William: 

An  Atlas  of  Ancient  Geography,  bib- 
lical and  classical.  Edited  by 
George  Grove.  Boston:  1874. 

The  Old  Testament  History,  from  the 
creation  to  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  captivity.  Students’  edition. 
New  York : 1880. 

Smith  and  Van  Dyck  : 

Ar  ibic  Bible.  Bayroot  and  New 
York:  1865. 

Smith-Hackett  : 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible;  Its  antiqui- 
ties, biography,  geography,  and 
natural  history.  American  edition. 
4 vols.  New  York : 1872. 

Society  of  Biblical  Archaology , Trans- 
actions of.  London : 1882-1883. 

Spaniieim,  Friedrich  : 

Opera,  quatenus  complectuntur  Geo- 
graphiam,  Chronologiam,  et  His- 
toriam  sacram  atque  ecclesiasti- 
cam.  Leyden : 1750. 

Speakers'  Commentary ; The  Holy  Bible 

according  to  the  authorized  version, 
with  an  explanatory  and  critical 
commentary  and  a revision  of  the 
translation  by  bishops  and  other 
clergy  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
Edited  by  F.  C.  Cook.  10  vols. 
New  York:  1872-1876. 

Stanford,  Edward  : 

London  Atlas  of  Universal  Geogra- 
phy. London  : 1882. 

Stanley,  Arthur  Penrhyn  : 

Sinai  and  Palestine,  in  connection 
with  their  history.  New  edition. 
London : 1871. 

The  History  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
New  York : 1879. 

Stark,  K.  B. : 

Gaza  und  die  Philistaische  Kuste. 
Jena : 1852. 

Stephens,  Francis  : 

French  Bible.  Geneva : 1567. 

Stephens,  John  L. : 

Incidents  of  Travel  in  Egypt,  Arabia 
Petrsea,  and  the  Holy  Land.  New 
York:  1854. 

Stewart,  Robert  Walter  : 

The  Tent  and  Khan;  A journey  to 
Sinai  and  Palestine.  Edinburgh  : 
1857. 


Strabo : 

Rerum  Geographicarum  Libri  XVII. 
Edidit  Thomas  Falconer.  Oxford : 
1807. 

Strauss,  Friedrich  Adolph  : 

Sinai  und  Golgatha;  Reise  in  das 
Morgenland.  Neunte  verbesserte 
Auflage.  Berlin : 1870. 

Stuart,  Villiers: 

Nile  Gleanings,  concerning  the  Eth- 
nology, History  and  Art  of  An- 
cient Egypt.  London  : 1879. 

The  Funeral  Tent  of  an  Egyptian 
Queen.  London : 1882. 

Studien  und  Kritiken.  Berlin : 1850 
and  1853. 

Survey  of  Western  Palestine  : 

Arabic  and  English  Name  Lists. 

1 vol.  London  : 1881. 

Map  of  Western  Palestine.  London  : 
1880. 

Memoirs  of  the  Topography,  Oro- 
graphy, Hydrography  and  Archae- 
ology. 3 vols.  London : 1882. 
Special  Papers  on  the  Topography, 
Archaeology  and  Customs,  1 vol. 
London : 1881. 

Tacitus,  C.  Cornelius  : 

Opera.  2 vols.  Amsterdam : 1672. 
Talmud  Babylonicum,  Vienna : 1806. 
Talmud  Hierosolymitanum , Cracow : 
1609. 

Taylor,  Bayard  : 

The  Lands  of  the  Saracen ; or, 
Pictures  of  Palestine,  Asia  Minor, 
Sicily  and  Spain.  New  York : 
1855. 

Teachers'  Bible,  published  by  Eyre  & 
Spottiswoode.  London  : [s.  a.] 
Thevenot,  J. : 

Reisen  in  Europa,  Asia  und  Africa. 
Frankfurt  am  Main:  1693. 
Thompson,  William  M.: 

Central  Phoenicia  and  Palestine  (The 
Land  and  the  Book).  New  York  : 
1882. 

Southern  Palestine  and  Jerusalem 
(The  Land  and  the  Book).  New 
York:  1880. 

Tischendorf,  Constantin  von  : 

Aus  dem  heiligen  Lande.  Leipzig: 
1862. 

De  lsraelitarum  per  Mare  Rubrum 
Transitu.  Leipzig : 1847. 

Vetus  Testamentum  Graece,  juxta 
LXX  interpretes.  2 vols.  Leip- 
zig: 1875. 

Tomkins,  Henry  George  : 

Studies  on  the  Times  of  Abraham. 
London  : [5.  a.] 

Tremellius  and  Junius  : 

Testamenti  Veteris  Biblia  Sacra. 
Geneva : 1530. 

Tristram,  H.  B. : 

Bible  Places;  or,  The  Topography 
of  the  Holy  Land.  London  : 1878. 


444 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


The  Land  of  Moab ; Travels  and  dis- 
coveries on  the  east  side  of  the 
Bead  Sea  and  the  Jordan.  New 
York:  1873. 

The  Land  of  Israel ; A journal  of 
travels  in  Palestine,  undertaken 
with  special  reference  to  its  physi- 
cal character.  Second  edition. 
London : 1866. 

Tuch,  Friedrich  : 

Fin  und  zwanzig  Sinaitische  In- 
schriften.  Leipzig : 1849. 

Unruh,  Gustav  : 

Der  Zug  der  Israeliten  aus  iEgypten 
nach  Canaan.  Langensalza  : 1860. 

Van  der  Palm  : 

Bible.  Leyden : 1818. 

Van  de  Velde,  C.  W.  M. : 

Reise  durch  Syrien  und  Paldstina, 
in  den  Jahren,  1851  und  1852. 
2 vols.  Leipzig : 1855. 

Map  of  the  Holy  Land.  Gotha: 
1865. 

Van  Hamelsveld,  Ysbrand: 

Biblische  Geographie.  Aus  dem  Hol- 
liindischen  iibersetzt  von  Rudolph 
Janisch.  3 vols.  Hamburg:  1793. 

Victoria  Institute : Journal  of  the  Trans- 
actions of  the  Victoria  Institute,  or 
Philosophical  Society  of  Great 
Britain.  London : 1881. 

Voelter,  Ludwig  : 

Das  Heilige  Land,  und  das  Land 
der  israelitischen  Wanderung. 
Stuttgart:  1864. 

Volney,  C.  F. : 

Travels  through  Syria  and  Egypt , in 
the  years  1783,  1784  and  1785. 
Translated  from  the  French.  2 
vols.  London : 1788. 

Von  Gerlach,  Otto  : 

Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch. 
Translated  from  the  German  by 
Henry  Downing.  Edinburgh": 
1860. 

Von  Maltzan,  Heinrich: 

Reisen  in  A rabien.  2 vols.  Bruns- 
wick: 1873. 

Von  Raumer,  Karl  : 

Paldstina.  Mit  einer  Karte  von 
Palastina.  Vierte,  vermehrte  und 
verbesserte  Auflage.  Leipzig : 
1860. 

Der  Zug  der  Israeliten  aus  JEgvpten 
nach  Canaan.  Leipzig:  1837. 

Von  Schubert,  Gotthilf  Heinrich: 

Reise  in  das  Morgenland  in  den  Jah- 
ren 1836  und  1837.  3 vols.  Erlan- 
gen : 1 838. 

Vulgate : Biblia  Sacra  Vulgatae  editionis 

Sixti  V.  et  dementis  VIII.  jussu 
recognita  atque  edita.  London: 
[*•  «•] 

Waiirmund,  Adolf: 

Praktisches  Handbuch  der  neu-Ara- 
bischen  Sprache.  Geisscn  : 1861. 


Walpole,  Robert  : 

Travels  in  Various  Countries  of  the 
East.  London  : 1820. 

Walton,  Brian: 

Biblia  Polyglotta . 6 vols.  London  : 
1657. 

Warburton,  Eliot: 

Travels  in  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land ; 
or,  The  Crescent  and  the  Cross. 
Philadelphia:  1859. 

Warner,  Charles  Dudley  : 

In  the  Levant.  Boston  : 1877. 

Wells,  Edward: 

An  Historical  Geography  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  Oxford: 
1840. 

Wellsted,  J.  R. : 

Travels  in  Arabia.  London : 1838. 

Wilkinson,  J.  Gardner: 

The  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  An- 
cient Egyptians.  Revised  and  cor- 
rected by  Samuel  Birch.  3 vols. 
New  York:  1878. 

Topography  of  Thebes,  and  general 
view  of  Egypt.  London  : 1835. 

Williams,  George  : 

The  Holy  City ; or,  Historical  and 
topographical  notices  of  Jerusa- 
lem. London : 1845. 

Wilson,  Erasmus: 

The  Egypt  of  the  Past.  Second  edi- 
tion. London  : 1882. 

Wilson,  John  : 

The  Lands  of  the  Bible,  visited  and 
revisited.  2 vols.  Edinburgh : 
1847. 

Wilson,  Thomas  : 

Christian  Dictionary.  London:  1678. 

Wilton,  Edward: 

The  Negeb,  or  “ South  Country  ” of 
Scripture.  London  and  Cam- 
bridge: 1863. 

Winer,  Georg  Benedict  : 

Biblisches  Realwbrterbuch  fur  Studi- 
rende,  Candidaten,  Gymnasialleh- 
rer  und  Prediger.  2 vols.  Leipzig : 
1849. 

Chaldaische  Grammatik  fur  Bibel  und 
Targumim.  Dritte  Auflage  ver- 
mehrt  durch  eine  Anleitung  zum 
Studium  des  Midrasch  und  Tal- 
mud von  Dr.  Bernard  Fischer. 
Leipzig:  1882. 

Wordsworth,  Christopher  : 

Holy  Bible  with  Notes.  London : 
1865. 

Wright,  Thomas: 

Early  Travels  in  Palestine.  Lon- 
don: 1848. 

Young,  Robert  : 

Analytical  Concordance  to  the  Bible. 
Fourth  revised  edition.  Author- 
ized reprint.  New  York:  1881. 

Ziegler,  Jacob: 

Geography  of  Palestine.  [No  title- 
page.]  Leyden:  1632. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED. 


445 


ZlMMERMANN,  KARL  : 

Karte  von  Syrien  und  Paldstina. 
Berlin : 1850. 

Zincke,  F.  Barham  : 

Egypt  of  the  Pharaohs  and  the  Khe- 
dive. London : 1873. 


PERIODICALS. 

The  Academy : 

London : May  5,  1883. 

The  Biblical  Repository  : 

Andover  : October,  1832  ; April, 
1833;  October,  1883. 

Bibliotheca  Sacra  : 

Andover:  February,  1843;  January, 
1848;  May,  1849;  January,  1869. 
British  Quarterly  Review : 

American  reprint.  New  York:  July, 
1883. 

Bulletin  de  la  Societe  Geographique : 

Paris : June,  1839. 

Edinburgh  Review : 

Edinburgh:  January,  1877. 


The  Independent : 

New  York:  December  7,  1882. 
Kitto’s  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature : 

London:  July,  1848;  April,  1860. 
Macmillan’s  Magazine : 

London  and  New  York:  January 
and  May,  1883. 

Monatsbericht  iiber  die  Verhandlungen 
der  Gesellschaft  fur  Erdkunde : 

Berlin : May,  1848. 

Palestine  Exploration  Fund.  Quarterly 
Statement : 

London  : July,  1875 ; January,  1881 ; 
July,  1881. 

Studien  und  KritiJcen : 

Berlin : 1850  and  1854. 

The  Sunday  School  Times  : 

Philadelphia:  June  23  and  August 
4,  1883. 

The  Sunday  School  World : 

Philadelphia : January,  1883. 
Zeitschrift  des  Deutschen  Palaestina- 
Vereins  : 

Yols.  I-VI.  Leipzig. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED  AT  SECOND  HAND. 


Abd-er-Rashid  el-Bakouy  : 

Kitab  Talkis  el-Atfar.  In  manu- 
script : date  of  the  work,  1403. 

Abulfeda : 

Annates  Moslemicae.  Leipzig:  1788- 
1795. 

Reliquiae  Geographicae.  Manuscript 
in  the  Imperial  Library,  at  Vienna. 

Bunsen,  Christian  C.  J.  : 

Vollstdndiges  Bibelwerk : 1858-1870. 

COSMAS  Indicopleustes  : A Christian 

Topography  Embracing  the  Whole 
World. 

D’Anville,  J.  B.  B. : 

Memoires  sur  VEgypte  Ancienne  et 
Moderne.  Paris:  1766. 

Fraas  : 

Aus  dem  Orient.  1867. 

Houbigant,  Charles: 

Biblia  Hebraica.  Paris : 1753. 


Lengerke,  C.  E. : 

Kenaan:  Yolks- und  Religionsges- 
chichte  Israels.  Konigsberg  : 1844^ 
1848. 

Michaelis,  J.  D. : 

Dissertatio  de  Locorum  Differentia. 
Gottingen  : 1769. 

Movers,  F.  C. : 

Die  Plwnicier.  Bonn:  1841. 
Russegger,  Joseph: 

Reisen  in  Europa,  Asien  und  Africa . 
3 vols.  Stuttgart:  1841-1849. 
Yakoot  el-Hamawi  : 

Geographical  Dictionary.  1220, 


PERIODICALS. 

Monatsberichte  der  Kaiserlichen  Akade- 
mie  der  Wissenschaften.  Berlin : 
1866. 

Zach’s  Monatlicher  Correspondenz.  1806, 
and  following  years. 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED. 


[The  names  of  authors  in  this  Index  appear  also  in  the  List  of  Authorities  Cited.  Others 
again  appear  in  the  Topical  Index.  All  are  here  given  together  for 
added  convenience  of  reference.] 


Aaron,  20,  23,  129,  130,  133,  135,  136, 
148,  149,  198,  210,  317,  381,  389,  390 
Aahmes,  or  Amasis,  48 
Abbott,  Lyman,  228 
Abeken,  H.,  230 
Abd-er-Rashid  El-Bakouy,  72 
Abimelech,  255 

Abraham,  15, 28, 31, 33, 44, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 
63, 64, 88, 89, 90, 102, 129, 136, 188, 255 
Abulfeda,  41.  49,  50.  67,  170,  173,  174 
Achsah,  104,  106 

Adrichomius,  Christian,  151,  196,  197, 
198,  201,  208 
Ainsworth,  Henry,  151 
Alee,  Muhammad,  72,  136 
Alford,  Henry,  62,  94,  223,  398 
Ali  Bey  el-Abassi,  207 
Amalek,  40,  41 
Amalric  I.,  186,  188 
Amenhotep  IV.,  365 
Amenemhat  I.,  47,  48 
Amenemhat  II.,  54 
Antonio  (of  Castile),  199 
Arculf,  185 
Aristotle,  51,  54,  383 
Arnold,  Franz,  223 
Asshur-bani-pal,  31,  32 
Athanasius,  175 
Ayme,  Du  Bois,  342 

Bachiene,  Wilhelm  Albert,  202 
Baedeker,  Karl,  63, 112, 339, 341,345, 366, 
377 

Baldwin  III.,  186 
Baring-Gould,  S.,  176 
Barker,  C.,  194 

Barrett,  Richard  A.  F.,  19,  126,  127 
446 


Barrows,  E.  P.,  228 

Bartlett,  Samuel  C.,  45,  63,  142,  166,  224, 
228,  232,  233,  244,  246,  255,  257,  278, 
284,  290,  291,  293,  343,  359,  381,  382, 
383,  403,  407,  423 
Bartlett,  W.  H.,  239,  346 
Bassler,  Ferdinand,  227 
Baumgarten,  M.,  153 
Beer,  E.  F.  F.,  278 
Berchere,  N.,  339,  341 
Berghaus,  H.,  227 
Bertou,  122,  136,  207 
Besant,  Walter,  10,  245,  246,  350 
Bevan,  W.  L.,  41 

Birch,  Samuel,  39,  47, 49,  53,  56, 162, 381, 
407,  408,  413,  414,  416, 418 
Bissell,  E.  C.,  165,  166 
Blaeu,  W.  and  J.,  199 
Bochart,  Samuel,  56 
Bonar,  Horatius,  37,  63,  88,  239,  251,  284, 
293,  295 
Borel,  342 

Breydenbach,  Bernhard,  143,  191,  192, 
196,  202 

Briggs,  Charles  A.,  11 
Brocardus,  190,  192,  196,  197,  208 
Brown,  John,  151 
Browne,  E.  Harold,  69 
Bruce,  James,  338 

Brugsch,  Heinrich,  39,  47,  48,  49,  51,  52, 
53,  56,  63,  89,  99,  160,  161,  162,  164 
326,  327,  328,  329,  331,  332,  333,  335, 
336,  338,  339,  342,  352,  353,  357,  359, 
361,  362,  363,  364,  365,  366,  367,  368, 
371,  372,  373,  375,  376,  377,  380,  381, 
382,  383,  392,  393,  394,  395,  403,  404, 
405,407,409,411,414, 416,  417,418,419 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED . 


447 


Buddeus,  Carl  Franz,  227 
Bunsen,  Christian  C.  J.,  48,  51,  54,  383, 
409,  412,  413,  415,  416,  418,  419 
Bunsen,  Ernest  de,  32,  46,  165,  223 
Bunting,  Heinrich,  25,  198 
Burckhardt,  J.  L.,  37,  68,  128,  134,  144, 
150,  151,  154,  174,  175,  205,  206,  207, 
208,  238,  239,  240,  266,  377,  378,  388, 
406 

Burton,  Richard  F.,  36,  46,  68,  267,  346, 
355,  387,  397 

Bush,  George,  41,  108,  228,  385 
Buxtorf,  Johann,  176,  177,  355,  419 

Caleb,  104 
Callier,  88 

Calmet,  Augustin,  25,  151 

Campbell,  Colin,  261 

Cartwright,  Lady  Elizabeth,  261 

Catafago,  Joseph,  170 

Cellarius,  Christopher,  63,  151,  175,  201 

Chabas,  F.,  46,  47,  161 

Chalfa,  37 

Chambers,  T.  W.,  11 

Champollion,  Jean  Francois,  56,  374 

Chedor-la’omer,  31,  32 

Chester,  Greville,  359,  360,  366,  375,  403 

Chevallier,  E.,  31,  32, 41,  89, 160, 164,  381 

Clarius,  41 

Clark,  Samuel,  223,  225,  227,  377,  407 
Coit,  T.  W.,  11 
Coleman,  Lyman,  228 
Colenso,  John  William,  20,  390,  391 
Conant,  T.  J.,  228 

Conder,  C.  R.,  28,  62,  63,  101,  104,  105, 
162,  179,  227,  268,  345,  316 
Cook,  C.  L,  39,  346,  385,  406,  415,  418 
Cory,  Isaac  Preston,  53,  408 
Cosmas,  278 
Cox,  Geo.  W.,  186 

Crosby,  Howard,  97,  108,  118,  133,  228 
Cyril,  63 

D’Anville,  J.  B.,  135 
Dapper,  O.,  199 

Davidson,  Samuel,  35,  174,  217,  218 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  18,  19,  24,  33,  36,  41, 
63,  64,  65,  70,  71,  94,  97, 108,  110, 114, 
126,  142,  145,  149,  151,  176,  223,  377, 
406,  422,  423 
Delukah,  49 
De  Rouge,  160 


De  Sola,  41 

Dieterici,  421 

Diodorus,  (Siculus),  49 

Drew,  C.  S.,  130,  226,  341 

Drusius,  151 

Dulles,  Allan  M.,  247 

Dulles,  John  W.,  164 

Durbin,  John  P.,  26,  38,  97,  228 

Ebebs,  Georg,  39,  46,  47,  51,  54,  56,  143, 
160,  328,  329,  330,  333,  335,  339,  380, 
382,  383,  392,  393,  394,  395,  403,  404, 
406,  407,  409,  411,  413,  415,  417,  418, 
419,  420,  423 

Edersheim,  Alfred,  18,  21,  24,  151,  223, 
390 

Edwards,  Amelia  B.,  160 
Eleazer,  130,  135 
Elon,  37 

Esau,  37,  40,  41,  88,  89,  90,  91,  92,  93,  94, 
98,  99 

Espin,  T.  E.,  21,  151,  224 
Eusebius,  18,  69,  120,  121,  130,  131,  167, 
168,  171,  173,  175,  178,  179,  180,  181, 
185,  187,  189,  190,  193,  194,  196,  198, 
199,  201,  202,  208,  408 
Ewald,  Heinrich,  20,  25,  41,  43,  44,  46, 
138,  148,  222,  223,  406 
Ezekiel,  120,  122 

Fabri,  Felix,  143,  191,  192,  202 

Fagius,  Paul,  43 

Fairbairn,  Patrick,  41 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  261 

Faussett,  A.  R.,  46,  151,  172,  226 

Fazakerley,  239,  354 

Field,  Henry  M.,  239,  250,  297 

Fikry,  Muhammad  Ameen,  170 

Finati,  Giovanni,  355 

Fischer,  Bernhard,  41,  172 

Formby,  Henry,  97,  239 

Forster,  Charles,  36,  151,  152,  180,  278 

Fresnel,  355 

Freytag,  G.  W.,  96,  105,  112,  150,  170, 
291,  339,  341 

Fries,  W.,  19,  21,  41,  64,  100,  126,  151, 
152,  222 
Fritzsche,  165 

Fiirer,  Christopher,  151,  200 
Fiirer,  Jacob,  200 

Fiirst,  Julius,  24,  56,  84,  89,  103,  111,116, 
150,  172,  386,  392,  399,  419 


448 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED . 


Geddes,  Alexander,  107,  108,  110,  118 
Geikie,  Cunningham,  21,  223,  333,  385 
Gesenius,  William,  44,  55,  56,  70,  84,  89, 
103,  113,  125,  150,  223,  352,  386,  392, 
398,  399,  419 
Gildemeister,  174 
Glynn,  Joseph,  51 
Goodwin,  C.  W.,  47,  417 
Graetz,  H.,  27,  50,  .223,  346,  379,  399,  403 
Greene,  J.  Baker,  45 
Grotius,  H.,  43,  44 

Grove,  George,  18,  40,  63,  64,  65,  75,  103, 
109,  165,  166,  172,  174,  377 

Hackett,  H.  B.,  24,  143,  41,  46,  64,  65, 
68,  71,  75,  89,  103,  104,  109,  143,  146, 
165,  166,  172,  346 
Hagar,  28,  44,  58,  340 
Hall,  Isaac  H,,  11 
Ham,  41 

Hamburger,  I.,  31,  223,  423 
Hamdh,  251,  253,  262,  263,  265,  276 
Harmar,  Thomas,  397 
Harris,  A.  C.,  371 
Hartranft,  C.  D.,  11 
Hase,  403 

Hasius,  J.  M.,  20,  63,  202 
Ilauqal,  Ibn,  173 

Hayman,  Henry,  21,  68,  71,  226,  346 
Hedayah,  Muhammad  Ahmad,  260,  261, 
262 

Heidmann,  199 
Heilprin,  M.,  11 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  41,  120,  122,  123, 
149,  153 

Henniker,  Frederic,  207,  293 
Herodotus,  56,  344,  345 
Herzog,  J.  J.,  223 
Hillerus,  Joannes,  25 
Hitzig,  Ferdinand,  120,  227 
Hobab,  80 

Holland,  F.  W.,  45,  77,  78,  79,  80,  82,  83, 
101,  102,  140,  142,  227,  228,  233,  268, 
315,  349,  350 

Homann,  Johann  Baptiste,  199 
Horsley,  Samuel,  108,  110 
Houbigant,  C.  F.,  107,  118 
Houghton,  W.,  39 
Hussftn,  249,  250,  251,  252 
Huxley,  T.  II.,  345 

Ibraheem,  251,  262,  299 
Irby,  C.  L.,  108,  109,  128,  174,  207 


Isaac,  62,  91,  92,  102,  255 
Isambert,  375 
Istachri,  56 

Jacob,  62,  90,  91,  92,  93,  94,  99,  102. 
Jerome,  18,  24,  43,  69,  101,  120,  121,  130, 
131,  166,  167,  168,  171,  173,  175,  178, 
179,  180,  181,  185,  187,  189,  190,  193, 
194,  196,  202,  208 
Jessup,  H.  H.,  10,  90,  341 
Joanne,  375 
Johns,  212 

Johnson,  Alexander  Keith,  226,  375,  377 
Joseph,  340 

Josephus,  Flavius,  52,  55,  56,  69,  93,  101, 
130, 131, 167, 168, 169, 173, 175, 181, 202 
Joshua,  62,  94,  102,  103,  106,  120,  312 
Juda,  Leo,  152 
Judah,  101 

Kalisch,  M.  M.,  43,  62,  68,  71,  94,  223, 
398 

Kedar-el-Ahmar,  32 

Kedor-la’omer,  33,  34,  35,  36  37,  39,  40, 
42,  43,  65,  80,  82,  84,  88,  99,  185,  187 
Kedor-nakhunta,  31,  32 
Keil,  Friedrich,  18,  19,  24,  33,  36,  41,  63, 
64,  65,  70,  71,  93,  97,  108,  110,  114, 
122,  126,  142,  145,  149,  151,  223,  377, 
406,  422,  423 

Kenrick,  John,  411,  418,  420 
Kiepert,  H.,  345,  350 
Kitto,  John,  35,  41,  71,  151,  217,  226,  227 
Klunzinger,  C.  B.,  239,  343,  344,  355 
Knobel,  August,  104,  108,  111,  138,  223 
Koehler,  J.  B.,  112,  176 
Kudur-Mabuk,  32 

Kurtz,  Johann  Heinrich,  18,  20,  21,  24 
33,  41,  46, 55,  58,  63,  69,  70,  93,  97, 
115,  126,  145,  148,  149,  151,  152,  222, 
346,  385,  397,  406 

Laborde,  Leon  de,  46,  128,  148,  177, 
206,  207,  238,  239,  240,  350,  354,  378, 
406 

Lane,  Edward  William,  73,  170,  386,  387 
Lane-Poole,  Stanley,  366,  384 
Lange,  John,  19,  21, 27  31, 36, 55, 94, 104, 
108,  110,  119.  122,  126,  127,  138,  142, 
148,  149,  153,  223,  398,  399 
Leake,  W.  M.,  175 
Leeser,  Isaac,  108 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED. 


449 


Legh,  128,  207 
Lengerke,  153 

Lenormant,  Francois,  31,  32,  41,  53,  89, 
160,  164,  381,  418,  420 
Lepsius,  Richard,  37,  46,  47,  54,  140,  230, 
331,  333,  350,  351,  375,  377,  408,  409, 
411,  416,  417,  418 
Lerch,  56 

Lesseps,  Ferdinand  de,  383,  403 
Leusden,  Johann,  25 
Lieblein,  335 
Lidenthal,  De,  41 

Lightfoot,  John,  19, 169, 176, 200,  201,  227 
Linant,  88,  206 

Lindsay,  Lord,  38, 97, 133, 136, 137, 207, 239 
Lipenius,  355 

Loftus,  William  Kennett,  31 
Lot,  33 

Lowrie,  S.  T.,  11, 19, 21, 27, 148, 153, 224, 228 

Ludwig,  Salvator,  350 

Lushington,  E.  L.,  408,  416,  417 

Luther,  Martin,  95 

Lynch,  W.  F.,  108 

Lyra,  41 

Macgregor,  J.,  387 
Maimonides,  189 
Malvenda,  41 
Manetho,  52,  53,  54,  56 
Mangey,  64 

Mangle,  James,  108,  109,  128,  174,  207 

Maqdisi,  See  Abulfeda 

Mariette,  Auguste,  47,  368,  383,  414 

Martineau,  Miss  Harriet,  97, 128, 144,  239 

Masius,  118 

Maspero,  418 

Maundeville,  John,  185 

Maundrell,  H.,  144 

Mauriac,  Antoine  du,  343 

McClellan,  George  B.,  261 

McClintock,  John,  228 

McCoan,  J.  C.,  116,  239 

Mead,  Charles  M.,  261 

Meneptah,  425 

Menke,  Theodor,  121,  122,  223,  339 
Menochius,  41 
Mercator,  Gerard,  195,  196 
Merrill,  Selah,  36,  239 
Meter  aboo  Sofieh,  245,  246 
Michaud,  J.  F.,  186,  187,  188 
Michaelis,  J.  D.,  44,  55,  67 
Mills,  Charles,  186,  187 


Mills,  John,  281 
Milman,  Henry  Hart,  27 
Miriam,  23,  148,  177,  278,  317 
Moncony,  Balthasar,  177 
Montano,  199 
Moosa,  Shaykh,  247,  248 
Moses,  16,  17,  18,  20,  21,  23,  26,  43,  59, 65, 
73,  75,  76,  79,  83,  93,  94, 101, 107, 130, 
135,  136,  148,  149,  177,  186,  198,  204, 
210,  252,  312,  317,  320,  353,  361,  381, 
382,  389,  390,  399, 403, 424  f.,  427, 428 
Movers,  F.  K.,  165 
Miihlau,  F.,  223 
Muller,  Max,  203,  410 
Munster,  Sebastian,  41,  194,  195,  196 
Murphy,  James,  41,  385,  398 
Murray,  John,  88,  105,  226,  295,  377 
Musleh,  Shaykh,  244,  245,  246,  248,  250, 
251,  252,  253,  267 

Napier,  John  T.,  11, 171 
Neubauer,  Adolph,  58,  164,  168,  372 
Newnham,  W.  H.,  177 
Niebuhr,  Carlsten,  58,  143,  393,  406 
Niebuhr,  Marcus  Yon,  31 
Nissim,  169 
Noah,  41 

Noldeke,  Theodor,  41 

Olin,  Stephen,  38,  97,  228,  239 

Oliphant,  Lawrence,  36 

Onkelos,  44 

Ortelius,  195,  196 

Oscanyan,  O.,  386 

Osiris,  54 

Osirtasin,  39 

Othniel,  104 

Otho,  Johannes,  168 

Owdy,  251,  252,  256,  257,  258,  259,  262, 
263,272, 275,276, 279,  292,294,295  298 

Paine,  Caroline,  97,  239,  247 
Paine,  J.  A.,  11 
Palfrey,  John  Gorham,  21,  71 
Palmer,  Edward  Henry,  18, 21, 27,  37,  38, 
39,  46,  63,  66,  68,  69,  70,  71,  77,  88, 
93,  94,  96,  100,  104, 105,  117, 119, 123, 
133,  134,  137,  142,  148,  165, 166,  175, 
223,  231,  232,  233,  239,  240,  241,  244, 
245,  248,  249,  250,  255,  256,  257,  264, 
266,  268,  270,  271,  281,  284,  287,  291, 
293,  294,  295,  338,  339,  341,  350,  378, 
381,  387,  404 


450 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED. 


Patrick,  Simon,  19,  151 

Perizonius,  Jacobus,  372 

Pharaoh,  398,  399,  400,  401,  402,  425,  427 

Philo,  Judseus,  64,  419 

Pierotti,  Ernesti,  237,  239,  386,  387 

Pietrement,  C.  O.,  40 

Pitts,  Joseph,  397 

Plantin,  Christopher,  194 

Pliny,  51,  101,  345,  383 

Pococke,  112,  138,  177,  204 

Pool,  Matthew,  151 

Poole,  R.  S.,  326,  339,  346,  347,  361,  380, 
381,  382.  409,  414 

Pool,  Stanley  Lane,  19,  41,  108,  111,  118, 
127,  384 
Porphyry,  415 

Porter,  J.  L.,  36,  45,  63,  89,  101,  164, 226, 
295 

Poseidonios,  345 

Post,  G.  E.,  297 

Prideaux,  Humphrey,  16 

Prime,  William  C.,  11,  248 

Ptolemy,  54,  58,  101,  120,  194,  345,  346 

Quaresmitjs,  Franciscus,  151,  199 

Radenhatjsen,  403 

Raleigh,  Walter,  62,  116,  151,  199 

Rameses  I.,  416 

Rameses  II.,  50,  52,  54,  334,  380,  414,  416 
Rameses  III.,  53,  365,  367,  370,  371, 
373 

Ranke,  Leopold  von,  149 
Ransounet,  Eugene  Baron,  355 
Raphall,  41 

Rashi,  (Solomon  ben  Isaac),  43,  44,  123, 
151,  189,  38^,  421 

Rawlinson,  Henry,  31,  32,  33,  36,  37,  38, 
40,  50,  56,  63,  64,  73,  163,  165 
Reland,  Adrian,  41,  63,  85,  86,  88,  101, 
120,  121,  165,  166,  175,  201,  208 
Renouf,  P.  Le  Page,  48,  404,  405,  409, 
410,  415,  416,  418 
Reuss,  Edouard,  227 
Richardson,  144 
Richter,  403 
Riehm,  C.  August,  151 
Ritt,  Olivier,  51,  344 
Ritter,  Carl,  20,  25,  26,  37,  43,  62,  63,  64, 
68,  93,  104,  105,  148,  162,  166,  193, 
222,  223,  239 


Roberts,  J.,  397 

Robinson,  Edward,  38,  42,  62,  63,  67,  70, 
76,  77,  78,  80,  81,  82,  85,  86,  87,  88, 

94,  96,  104,  105,  109,  110,  112,  113, 
119,  120,  122,  126,  127,  128,  133,  134, 
136,  137,  138,  145,  146,  147,  151,  162, 
163,  165,  166,  173,  174,  175,  179,  190, 
192,  202,  204,  206,  207,  208,  209,  210, 
211,  216,  217,  218,  219,  220,  221,  223, 

224,  226,  227,  228,  231,  239,  242,  271, 
275,  281,  284,  288,  289,  293,  295,  310, 
314,  341,  350,  377.  378,  381,  382,  406 

Rodiger,  E.,  174 
Roger,  Eugene,  199 
Rosellini,  Ippolito,  161 
Rosenmiiller,  Ernst  F.  K.,  73,  115,  202, 
354 

Rouge  De,  408,  422 
Rovillius,  194 

Rowland,  John,  10,  45,  62,  64,  79,  93, 

95,  96,  100,  111,  151,  211,  212,  213, 
216,  218,  219,  220,  221,  222,  223,  224, 

225,  226,  227,  228,  229,  230,  231,  232, 
233,  241,  242,  255,  274,  284 

Roziere,  342 
Riickert,  K.  T.,  162 
Ruge,  S.,  194 

Riippell,  Edward,  206,  207,  239 
Russegger,  J.  207 

Saadia,  58,  380 
Sacy,  Silvestre,  de,  374 
Saladin,  188 
Sale,  George,  170,  252 
Saleh,  136 
Salim,  Shaykh,  212 
Salvator,  Ludwig,  116 
Sanson,  Nicolas,  199 
Santander,  194 
Sanuto,  Marino,  190,  195 
Saul,  55 

Saunders,  Trelawnev,  10,  27 
Sayce,  A.  H.,  31,  32*,  41,  56,  57,  66.  419 
Schaff,  Philip,  19,  21,  27,  31,  36,  55,  94, 
104,  108,  110,  119,  122,  126,  127,  138, 
142,  148,  149,  153,  165,  166,  223,  233, 
239,  242,  398,  399 
Schleiden,  M.  I.,  359,  360,  403 
Schmidt,  Sebastian,  107,  118 
Schneider,  403 
Schroder,  Paul,  103 

Schubert,  H.,  von,  38,  133,  136,  162,  207 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED. 


451 


Schultens,  H.  A.,  176 
Schwarz,  Joseph,  69,  151,  222 
Schweigger,  Salomon,  200 
Seetzen,  Ulrich  Jasper,  38,  67, 68,  88,  114, 
133,  136,  174,  204,  205,  219,  220,  229, 
231,  233,  284,  295 
Selden,  John,  419 
Selfisch,  194 

Sesodsis,  or  Sesostris,  49,  50,  51,  53,  54, 
56 

Sesortosis  II.,  54 
Sesortosis  III.,  54 

Setee  I.,  51,  52,  54,  351,  369,  372,  416 

Setee  Meneptah,  48,  50,  53 

Sharpe,  Samuel,  50,  55,  108,  278,  346,  381 

Shaw,  Thomas,  37,  177,  203,  204,  355 

Simeon,  106 

Simon,  Johann,  24 

Sineh,  47 

Smith,  Eli,  105,  173,  210,  341 
Smith,  Geo.,  32 
Smith,  R.  Payne,  21,  226,  227 
Smith,  Philip,  39,  353,  371 
Smith,  W.  Robertson,  408 
Smith,  William,  21,  27,  41,  46,  64,  65,  68, 
71,  75,  89,  103,  104, 109,  146, 165,  166, 
172,  225,  346 
Solms,  191 

Spanheim,  Frederick,  199 
Spiegel,  56 

Stanford,  Edward,  350 
Stanley,  Arthur  Penrhyn,  23,  26,  38,  43, 
44,  101,  112,  125,  128,  137,  225,  228, 
339,  366,  384 
Stark,  K.  B.,  63 

Stephen,  Francis,  194,  207,  239,  266 
Stewart,  Robert  Walter,  37,  46,  62,  63,  88, 
166,  229,  230,  239,  287,  295,  350 
Stickel,  355,  403,  406 
Strabo,  51,  56,  137,  338,  344,  345,  354, 383 
Strauss,  Friedrich  Adolph,  63,  223,  239, 
377,  406 

Strong,  James  T.,  228 
Stuart,  Yilliers,  39,  53,  160,  346,  409,  421 
Sulayman,  Shaykh,  223,  244,  246,  247, 
251,  255 

Tacitus,  C.  Cornelius,  339 
Thevenot,  J.,  37,  143,  203,  238 
Thierbach,  403 

Thomson,  W.  M.,  26,  62,  63,  64,  90,  103, 
104,  105,  175,  230 


Thotmes  I.,  39,  53 
Thotmes  III.,  372 

Tischendorf,  Constantine  yon,  55,  406 
Thrupp,  J.  F.,  151,  224 
Tomkins,  Henry  George,  31,  32,  35,  36, 
56,  160,  161,  163,  408,  412,  422 
Toy,  C.  H.,  11,  172 
Tremellius,  41 

Tristram,  H.  B.,  40,  62,  63,  64,  104,  108, 
110,  120,  122,  151,  163,  165,  174,  175, 
223 

Trumbull,  J.  Hammond,  11 
Tuch,  Friedrich,  21,  34,  35,  38,  45, 58, 64, 
68,  71,  216,  217,  218,  222,  278 
Tucher,  193 

Tyrwhitt-Drake,  C.  F.,  36,  264,  281 
Valentia,,  355 

Van  de  Velde,  C.  W.  M.,  62,  108, 122,  162 

Van  Dyck,  10,  119,  380 

Van  Hamelsveld,  Ysbrand,  189,  204,  403 

Vitriacus,  196 

Volck,  W.,  223 

Volney,  C.  F.,  207 

Volter,  Ludwig,  223 

Von  Gerlach,  Otto,  41,  127,  140,  148,  227, 
419 

Von  Maltzan,  Heinrich,  239 
Von  Raumer,  Karl,  44,  73,  122,  153,  175, 
176,  179,  202,  206,  207,  227,  228 
Von  Schubert.  See  Schubert 
Von  Zimber,  Hans  Werli,  191 

Unruh,  Gustav,  227 
Usertesen  I.,  52 
Usertesen  II.,  54 

Wahrmund,  Adolf,  173 
Walpole,  Robert,  239,  254,  354 
Walton,  Brian,  171 
Warburton,  Eliot,  267 
Warner,  Charles  Dudley,  261 
Warren,  Charles,  246 
Wattles,  Geo.  H.,  247 
W ebster,  Noah,  74 
Wellbeloved,  108 
Wellhausen,  J.,  21,  25 
Wells,  Edward,  69,  201 
Wellsted,  J.  R.,  37 
Wetzstein,  I.  G.,  36 

Williams,  George,  38,  45,  62,  63,  93,  95, 
100,  211,  212,  213,  216,  230,  273,  284 


452 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  NAMED. 


William  of  Tyre,  186,  196 
Wilson,  E.  L.,  269 
Wilson,  John,  217,  254,  378 
Wilson,  Thomas,  25,  38,  39,  68,  94,  97, 
104,  113,  116,  120,  128,  130,  133,  136, 
137,  162,  239,  256,  377,  380,  381,  382 
Wilton,  Edward,  18,  36,  39,  45,  62,  63, 
64,  82,  94,  99,  119,  120,  122,  123,  132, 
135,  138,  151,  152,  223 
Winer,  Georg  Benedict,  21,  31,  41,  65,  69, 
71,  112,  146,  153,  165,  166,  173,  217, 
218 


Wolcott,  Samuel,  40, 165 
Worcester,  Joseph  E.,  74 
Wordsworth,  Christopher,  94,  151,  223 
Wright,  Thomas,  185 

Yakoot,  68 
Young,  Robert,  172 

Zieglee,  Jacob,  195 
Zimmermann,  Karl,  39,  193 
Zunz,  Leopold,  189 


INDEX  OF  FOREIGN  WORDS  CITED. 


EGYPTIAN. 


aa^vsa. 

^ i 


418 


333 


3- 


3G8 


418 


. 418,  421 


337 


HEBREW  AND  CHALDEE. 


89 • . • OIK 

336  DttK 

“ T 

421 3VK 

36 

176 

407  D'TlbN 

316 inx 

316 enr in 

• t~: 

396 3 

25 1N3 

407  S#3 

407  S^3 

407  O'Sjn 

24 13 

24 jyia 


173 

173 K'J 

73,338 rpi 

96 m 

T 

127 inn  i in 

T T 

386  jn 

T 

67 iun 

T 

67 iijn 

57  .* iin 

— T 

57 nun 

T : - 

88 iin 

336  DMn 

94,  97 pSn 

I T T 


454  HEBREW  AND  CHALDEE. 


281 -12m 

•*  T 

88 'in 

336 onn 

“ T 

100 T 

T 

348  

145 tyD’ 

C2 *7^2 


67 

65 

336 


1)3 


405, 422 
109.  . 


377  biJlD 

T:  • 

43 itf'D 

149 , yD  D 

379 n’uppp 

379  A33pD 

126 riSrn 

T : T 

56 i'ttD 

T 

377 nayp 

56 Dnvp 


18 211 

119 njn'n 

TT  •*  YV 

115 U'ysn  inj 

117 bni 

115 o;ivp  bn; 

24  yi 

25  y_i 


114 220 

- T 

399  i-lD 

392 H3D 

T \ 

392  n'l3D 

124 JlSp 


17 D3pp  \'% 

83,  103,  176  VJ7 


37 

100 

111 

111 

70 

70 

89 


100.  . 
43  . . 
399.  . 

124.  . 
419.  . 
419  . . 
419.  . 
211.  . 

16  . . 

290  . . 
117.  . 
289  . . 

291  . . 
289  . . 
352,  398 


171 . 

172. 
40  . 
172. 
167. 
172. 
167  . 
167. 
167  . 
167  . 
167. 
290. 
150. 


. . .bj; 

'T-bj; 

• -T4 

nmy 

T T. 

nhij; 

■ • wy. 


. . . .nxa 
. wn  aba 

T • 

. . . . nia 

T T 

. . . . 

. . . -jte 
. . . .pax 
. . . wiaa? 
....  ns* 

• • • *^PT 


• ■ • DD'p 

• • • Dp'p 

. . . .d_dPt 

. . . .DDp 
. . . . n'np 

• • • TO- 

• . • . on 

“ T 

....  Dpi 
. . . .tsgi 
....  Dpi 
....  Dj7i 
....  Dpi 

• n ’so  Dpi 

. n*n  Dpi 

. n;rp  Dpi 

njj'ji  Dpi 

njnjn  Dpi 

. . . .yp_i 

. . • nnm 

▼ : • 


ARABIC. 


387  

- T 

91,99 miy 

40 ny® 

421 dhi? 

399  2W 

42G jnutf 

421 JDW 


382 

407 

89 


118 

364 

243 


455 

.D3» 

- T 

■tfD# 

vyw 

■ T 


DJIJrl 


ARABIC. 


154 

406  

336  . . . . 

174 

351 

243  . 

V5*1 

pie! 

rr*  **** 

V 

170  . . 

115  . . 

172.  . 

170,  174 

96,  211  . 

105.  . 

115 

406.  . 

115  . . . 

115 

. . JU3 

339,  341  ..  . 

336  . . 

362  ..  . 

174.  . 

362  

115 

^ 

16,  275  . 

173 

174.  . 

173 

283  . . 

192,  264  ..  . 

288.  . 

339  . . 

192 

150 

377,  378 

378 

154 

r5; 

24 

160 

374 



• ru; 

• £> 

• • t*> 

i^V1' 

SLa^aJI 

• r^3 


L 0 Hg 


•*r;w 


••iv* 


HjJaJLaJI 


JjJsx* 


£ YRIA  C.— COPTIC.— GREEK. 


yko. 

J^O 


456 


377 

378 
377 


&JJ 3J0 
. RjjCiLo 
■Ahjuo 


377 

117 


jonl 


SYRIAC. 

172  |1*K**«» 


. 171 


COPTIC. 


APHX 115 

AYFL-IX 115 

. ....  336 


-oaxjjjl,  336 

Aie\grYoaA. 374 

336 


A lyialolc,  ev 
Alyvnrog  . . 

’ Apajua  . . . 

’A cravov  Qapap 

B apvfj  .... 

Ya88i}  ev  . . . 

Yadoig,  ev  . . . 

TeTiapcovp . . . 

TeTiap-tpovp.  . . 

Tippa 

Yepfaov  .... 

Yeppdv  opiov  . . 

A tvtipa,  .... 

’E  yyadi  . . . 

’Eyyadcug,  iv  , 

Qapapd) .120 


’I  Sovpaia 101 

'T  nTcog 40 

YLaSrjg  tov  B apvfj 24 

’Odu/z  336 

Ylorapdg  Alyimrov 116 

’Yivotcopovpa 116 

T avig 380 

T e~ix°Q  rfs  Alyimrov  [Eret^ae  /c.r./l]  49 
T ereixtouEva 65 

T pu/lTj 88 

Ipuylodviai 88 

$apayi;  Atyiirrov 116 

$p£ap  npiGEwq 180 

XEipapfiovv  Alyimrov 116 

TQp 130 


GREEK. 
197 


56 

121 

121 

24 

197 

197 

55 

65 

48 

48 

54 

354 

197 

197 


LA  TIN.— GERMAN.— FRENCH. 


457 


LATIN. 


Ager  Hamalekitarum 41 

Akrabbim 195 

Alga  marina 354 

Arad 180 

Arama 180 

Arundo  iEgyptiaca 355 

Arundo  Isaica 355 

Asason  Thamar 121 

Avicennia  officinalis 355 

Cades 180, 193,  197 

Cades-barne 194 

Cades-Bersabee 195 

Cades  En-mishpat 194 

Chades  Barneab 195 


Filius  mutationis 24 

Fumus  in  itinere 397 


Hamalekitarum,  Incolas  agri ...  41 


Ignis  in  itinere 397 

Juncus  acutus 355 

Milvus  ater 260 

Or 130 

Petra  dura 96 

Recem  Superbam 171 

Via  lapidibus  strata 341 


GERMAN. 


Birket  Timsah  See 333 

Kanal  von  Heroopolis 333 

Muktal 351 


Strasse,  alte 350 

Wiistenweg  der  Beduinen  ....  362 


FRENCH. 


Bir  Makdai 

351 

Muraille  defensive  . , 

. . . . 

. . 47 

Chausde  

Murailles,  les.  . . . 

. . 48 

Kedesch 

164 

Pont  du  Tr6sor  . . . 

. . 362 

INDEX  OF  BIBLE  TEXTS. 


GENESIS. 


TEXT.  PAGE. 

3:  15 Ill 

10:  19 62 

11:1-9  367 

11:4  327,  373 

12 : 1-7 60 

12 : 2,  3 60 

12  : 6 62 

12 : 6-10 340 

12:  9 18 

12 : 10-19 60 

12 : 13 60 

12  : 16 388 

13  : 1-3 340 

13 : 1-4, 14-18 60 

13 : 7 62 

13:  18 61 

14 : 1-7 28 

14 : 1-12 33,  36 

14:  1-16 31 

14:3 38,  40 

14:  5 31 

14  : 5,  6 35, 306 

14 : 5-7 223 

14:6.  . .71,85,88,94,131 

14 : 6,  7 360,  243 

14 : 7 . . .17, 37, 43, 66, 67, 

99, 153, 170,  223, 306 

14 : 7,  8 40 

14 : 8-12 38 

14:  11,  16,  21 40 

14  : 12-16 33 

15:  6 61 

15 : 16 65 

16:  3 98 

16 : 7 . . .41,  44,  75,  81, 

98,  337,  340 

16:  12 237 

16 : 14 : . . . .28,  44,  213 

17  : 1-8 61 


458 


17:  5 90 

18 : 1 61,  340 

18 : 17 60 

20 : 1 . . . .28,  44,  59,  60, 
61,  63,  340 


20 

: 1,2 

. 62. 

, 166 

20 

: 2 

. 325 

20 

: 14,  16 

, 388 

21 

: 14,  21  . . . . 

. 68 

21 

: 20,  21  . . . . 

. 69 

21 

: 21 

. 98 

21 

: 22-33 

. 62 

22: 

: 3 

382 

23: 

: 3-20  

129 

24: 

: 62 

. 18 

25: 

>o 

00 

57, 

351 

25: 

25 

. 89 

25: 

27-34  

. 90 

25: 

30 

. 90 

26: 

1 . 

63, 

166 

26: 

1,  6 

. 61 

26: 

6-8 

. 62 

26: 

6,  16-18  . . . . 

. 62 

26: 

6-17 

255 

26: 

17 

. 62 

26: 

18-23  

. 62 

26: 

19-22  .... 

293 

26: 

23 

. 62 

26: 

26-33  

. 62 

26: 

34 

. 98 

26: 

34,  35  

. 90 

27: 

11 

. 94 

27: 

34-40  

. 90 

27: 

41-45  

. 90 

27: 

44 

. 59 

27: 

1-33 

. 90 

27: 

46 

. 98 

28: 

5 

. 90 

28: 

6-9 

. 90 

oo 

-1 

TEXT. 

PAGE. 

28:  18  . . 

382 

28:  18,19 

392 

29:  1-4  . 

392 

30:  25-43 

92 

31:  55  . . 

382 

32 : 1-3  . 

92 

32:  3 . . 

. . .85,  91,  131 

32  : 3,  4 . 

90 

32:  13-15 

388 

32:  24-32 

91 

33 : 11  . . 

388 

33:  14  . 

85 

33:  16  . 

91 

33:  17-20 

92 

34:  30  . 

62 

35:  1-8  . 

92 

35  : 4 . . 

36 

35:  21  . . 

367 

35 : 27  . . 

92 

35 : 27-29  . 

. ...  90,  91,  92 

35:  28,  29 

92 

36 : 1-8  . . 

...  90,  91,  92 

36  : 1,  8,  9, 

19,  21,  43  . .85 

36:  2 . . 

98 

36:  3 . . 

98 

36:  6 . . 

98 

36:  7 . . 

92 

36:  8 . . 

28 

36  : 8,  9 . . 

85 

36:  8,  21  . 

131 

36 : 9-15  . 

112 

36:  10-12  . 

.40 

36:  11,  15 

118 

36 : 12,  20, 

22 98 

36:  21  . . 

131 

36:  34  . . 

118 

37 : 25  . . . 

35 

37:  28  . . 

315 

41 : 43  . . 

39 

41:  57  . . 

339 

INDEX  OF  BIBLE  TEXTS. 


459 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


43 : 11  388 

46 : 1-7  340 

46 : 5-7 41 

46  : 20 340 

46 : 28  381 

46  : 28-34  380 

46  : 29  39 

47  : 1-6,  27  380 

47 : 11  380 

48 : 22  66 

50 : 7-14  340 

50 : 9 39 

EXODUS. 

1 : 10-14 401 

1 : 11  . . . . 339,  379,  380 

2:3 353 

2:5 100 

2 : 11-22 59 

3:1 44 

3:1-6 59 

3 : 1-22  386 

3 : 7, 8 59 

3:  7,8,15-17 396 

3 : 13-17 60 

3 : 15-17 61 

3 : 18 396 

3 : 21,  22 389 

3 : 22  389 

4 : 29-31  . . .60,  390, 396 

4 : 31 389 

5:1 • . 386 

5:3 396 

5 : 15 390 

6:2-8 396 

6 : 13-25  390 

6 : 20  382 

8  : 20  382 

8 : 25-27  396 

9 : 13 382 

9 : 26  381 

10  : 19 357 

10  : 21-23  381 

10  : 26  391 

11 : 1 .389 

11 : 1-8 390 

11 : 2 389 

11 : 3 389 

12  : 1-6 390 

12  : 1-20, 29-39  ....  385 


12 

: 1-28  . 

. . .390 

17 

: 14  . . . 

. 59 

12 

: 29  . . 

...  390 

19 

: 1 . . . . 

. 140 

12 

: 30,  31 

...  390 

19 

: 1,2  . . . 

. 140 

12 

: 30-33 

. . .396 

20 

: 1 . . . . 

12 

: 31-33 

. . .390 

20 

: 2 . . . . 

12 

: 31-41, 

51  . . 

. . .391 

20 

: 13,24  . . 

. 200 

12 

: 33  . . 

. . .424 

23 

: 31  . . . . 

. 358 

12 

: 35,36 

. . .389 

24 

: 4 ...  . 

. 59 

12 

: 37  . . 

. 380, 396 

26 

: 15-29  . . 

. 282 

12 

: 37-38 

. . .383 

27 

: 14  . . . . 

. 200 

13 

: 14  . 

...  59 

34 

: 27  ... 

. 59 

13 

: 17  . . 

. 310, 337 

40 

: 34-38  . . 

. 140 

13 

17, 18  , 

352,  399, 

401,  402 

NUMBERS. 

13 

18  . . 

. . 75, 

, 338,  352, 

1: 

1-54  . . . 

. 140 

358 

!,  359,  360 

1: 

51,  52  . . . 

13 

18;  14 

: 2 . 

. . . 358 

2: 

1-34  . . . 

. 140 

13 

19, 20 

. . .401 

2: 

34  ...  . 

. 141 

13 

20.  . 

. 328, 396 

7: 

3-8  ..  . 

. 78 

13: 

21  . . 

. 285,  397 

9: 

15-23  . . . 

. 80 

, 398 

13: 

21-22 

. . .398 

9: 

18,  21,  22  . 

. 145 

14: 

1 . . 

. . .360 

10: 

11  . . . 

. 19 

14: 

1,  2 . 

. . 399, 

, 406,  422 

10: 

11,  12  . . 

. 149 

14: 

2 . . . 

. 374, 

358,  419, 

10: 

12  ...  . 

. 68,  69 

421, 

422 

10: 

12,  33  . . 

. 69 

14: 

2,  9 . . 

.405, 

419,  422 

10: 

13  . ... 

. 149 

14: 

3,4  . 

. . . 400 

10: 

29-31  . . 

. 80 

14: 

3-5, 11, 

12  . . 

, . . 396 

10: 

29-32  . . 

. 252 

14: 

5 . . 

. . .401 

10: 

33  ...  . 

142 

,149 

14: 

5-12  . 

, . .401 

10: 

33-36  . . 

. 141 

14: 

7 . . . 

: . . 39 

11: 

1-3  ..  . 

, 142 

14: 

9 . . . 

402, 405 

11: 

33-35  . . 

148 

14: 

10  . . 

. . 424 

12: 

1-16  . . . 

, 148 

14: 

11, 12 

. . 425 

12: 

16  ...  . 

. 69 

14: 

13, 14 

. . 425 

13: 

1-20  . . . 

. 17 

14: 

19-23 

. .426 

13: 

148 

14: 

22, 29 

. . 426 

13: 

11-16  . . 

223 

14: 

24,  25 

. . 427 

13: 

17  ...  . 

18, 

219, 

277 

14: 

26-28 

. . 427 

13: 

21  . . . . 

. 19 

15: 

1-11  . 

. .428 

13: 

21-26  . . 

307 

15: 

22.  . . 

57, 75, 

327, 358, 

13: 

22  . ... 

277 

360,  428 

13: 

22  ...  . 

380 

15: 

22,23  . 

. . 140 

13: 

26  . . . 17, 

28, 

67, 

147, 

15: 

22-24  . 

. . . 47 

149 

',  151,  154 

15: 

22-27 

. .385 

13: 

27  . . . . 

. 19 

16: 

1 . . . 

140,  385 

13: 

29-33  . . 

41 

, 66, 

265 

17: 

1 . . . 

. . 140 

14: 

1-4  ..  . 

265 

17: 

6 . . . 

. . 124 

14: 

1,  34  . . . 

. 17 

17: 

8 . . . 

. . . 98 

14: 

1-45  . . . 

. 19, 

153 

17: 

8-13  . . 

. . 310 

14: 

4 

. 17 

, 22 

460 


INDEX  OF  BIBLE  TEXTS. 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


TEXT. 


PACE,  j TEXT. 


PAGE. 


14: 

10.  . 

. . . 171 

24 

: 18  . 

. 85 

1: 

2,  44  . 

....  28 

14: 

25  . . 

. .81, 

148,  309, 

27 

: 14.  . 

. 28,  67, 

, 119 

1: 

6,  7,  19  . . . 

....  17 

338 

352,  360 

31 

: 1-8  . 

. 168 

1: 

7,  8,  21  . . . 

....  59 

14: 

25-33 

. . . 358 

31 

: 1-12  . 

. 175 

1: 

19  . . 

19,  75, 

80,  81, 134, 

14: 

26-34  . 

...  60 

31 

: 7-12, 

48-50  . 

. 389 

150,  215,  306,  314 

14: 

39,  40  . 

...  18 

32 

: 8.  . 

. . 17,  19,  24, 

, 149 

1: 

19-21, 

27-31 

. ...  310 

14: 

39-45 

. . . 308 

33 

: 1-49  . 

. 145, 

, 314 

1: 

19,  22  , 

....  17 

14: 

40  . . 

. . 17 

211,  382 

33 

: 2 . . 

. 59 

1: 

19-24 

. 307,  308 

14: 

40,  44 

. . .277 

33 

: 3 . . 

380, 

, 384, 

, 385, 

, 424 

1: 

19-40  , 

....  60 

14: 

44,  45 

. . .219 

33 

: 5 . . 

, 384 

1: 

20  . . 

....  81 

14: 

45  . . 

. 18, 

65,  94,  98 

33 

: 6 . . 

328 

1: 

20,  24 

....  17 

15: 

35,  36 

. . . 172 

33 

: 6-8  . 

358 

1: 

24,  41 

. ...  219 

16 

. . .22 

33 

: 7 . . 

, 422 

1: 

40  . . 

. 75,  81,  318,  338, 

17 

. . .23 

33 

: 7,  8 . 

405, 

422 

352, 

358 

20: 

1 . . . 

19,  23 

, 28,  67, 

33 

: 8 . . 

. 327, 

, 406 

1: 

44  . . 

. . 18 

, 65,  85,  93, 

71,  147, 

151,  223, 

33 

8-10  . 

385 

94 

, 213 

2" 

*8,  309 

317,  318 

33 

10  . . 

. 358 

1: 

46  . . 

....  19 

20: 

1,2  . 

. . . 177 

33 

: 10-14 

140 

2: 

1 . . . 

305, 309, 338, 352, 

20: 

1-5  . 

. . . 272 

33 

: 16-37 

150 

358, 361, 81, 75, 19 

20: 

2-11  . 

...  23 

33 

18.  . 

151 

2: 

1-5  . . 

. 131,  132 

20: 

7-11  . 

124,  307 

33 

18-36 

. 20 

2: 

1-8  . . 

. 146,  318 

20: 

8 . . 

. . .273 

33 

: 26,  27 

153 

2: 

4,  5,  8, 

29  . . 

....  85 

20: 

12.  . 

33 

: 31,  32  . 

153 

2: 

5 . . . 

80,  90,  128 

20: 

12,  24  . 

. . .23 

33 

: 32—35, 

, 41-43 

153 

2: 

8 . . 

. .70, 

75,  85,  309 

20: 

13  . . 

. . 23, 

, 119,  169 

33 

: 35,  36 

359 

2: 

9,  18,  29  . . 

. ...  176 

20: 

14.  . 

. . . 317 

33 

: 36  . . 

. .28,71, 

,316 

2: 

12  . . 

....  88 

20: 

14-16  . 

. 67,  307 

33 

: 36,  37 

146, 

147, 

2: 

23  . . 

. . . .282 

20: 

14-21  . 

. 23, 24 

:,  129,  223 

150, 

223 

3: 

8 . . . 

....  66 

20: 

16.  . . 

28,  83, 

, 102,  305 

33: 

: 37  . 

.28, 

127, 

132 

3: 

24-28  . 

...  .59 

20: 

17  . . 

. 75,  338 

33 

: 37-39 

128 

4: 

49  . . 

...  .70 

20: 

17,19 

. . .298 

33: 

: 40  . . 

132, 

318 

5: 

6 . . . 

...  .59 

20: 

18-21 

. . .318 

34; 

: 1 . . 

100 

6: 

3-12  . 

...  .59 

20: 

19.  . 

34: 

: 3 . . 

. 94, 

,100, 

131 

6: 

12  . . 

....  59 

20: 

22-28 

. . . 135 

34: 

: 3,  4 . 

. 69,71 

8: 

1-6,  15 

, 16.  . 

. . . .59 

20: 

21  . . 

. . . 134 

34 

: 3-5  . 

. 28 

, 96, 

107, 

313 

8: 

7 . . 

. . .283 

20: 

21,  22  . 

...  28 

34: 

: 4 . . 

. 24. 

, 28, 

71, 

106, 

8: 

7-10  . 

....  59 

20: 

22  . . . 

.23, 

127,  128, 

110, 

111, 

114, 

125, 

8: 

9 . . . 

...  379 

130, 

, 215 

167, 

169, 

171, 

201, 

8: 

14  . . 

. . . .59 

20: 

22-29  . 

128,  318 

280, 

281, 

, 289. 

9: 

22  . . . 

...  142 

20: 

23.  . . 

. . .132 

34: 

: 4,  5 . 

289 

10 

: 6 . . 

. . 128,  135,  318 

20: 

26,  27  . 

. . . 135 

34: 

: 5 . . 

116, 

117 

10 

: 6,  7 . . 

...  145 

21: 

1.  . . 7 

5,  132, 

278,  316 

34: 

7,  8 . 

127 

11 

: 10-15 

. . . .59 

21: 

3 . . . 

. . . 305 

34: 

: 7-9  . 

127 

13 

: 5 . . 

...  .59 

21: 

4 . . . 

. 131, 

134,  309, 

34: 

10-12 

108 

13 

: 16  . . 

...  364 

318, 

338,  352 

15 

: 13-15 

. . .389 

21: 

4-20  . 

...  23 

DEUTERONOMY. 

19 

: 14  . . 

...  238 

21: 

15,28  . 

. . .176 

1: 

1 . . . 

. 70, 

309 

31 

: 17  . . 

. . .422 

21: 

22.  . . 

1: 

1-19  . 

. 75 

32 

: 15  . . 

....  67 

21: 

33  . . 

...  75 

1: 

2 . . . 

. 42,  67 

, 71, 

75,1 

32 

: 51  . . 

. 119,  200 

22: 

1 . . . 

131, 

153, 

215, 

305 

33 

....  22 

INDEX  OF  BIBLE  TEXTS. 


461 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


TEXT. 


PAGE. 


33 : 8 200 

34:  1,  8 70 

JOSHUA. 

3:1 382 

3 : 16 70 

5 : 1 ; 10  : 6 66 

5 : 9-10 392 

5:  10 70 

6 : 2-6, 20  387 

7 : 21 34 

10 : 5, 6 66 

10:  5;  24:  15 65 

10:  31-35 102 

10 : 36, 37  102 

10 : 36-39  161 

10 : 36-40  288 

10 : 38 104 

10 : 38, 39  . . . . 03, 104 

10 : 40, 41 106 

11 : 4, 6,  9 39 

11 : 15-17 94 

11 : 16, 17 28 

11 : 17 95, 110 

12:  1 127 

12:  3 70 

12:7  28,95,110 

12 : 7,  8 . . 94 

12  : 22 163 

14:  7 17,19 

15  : 1 100, 117 

15 : 1-3  ...  . 69, 71,  308 
15:  1-4  . . . .28,  107,313 

15:  1,8 215 

15:  1,21 131 

15:3.  . .28,111,125,169, 

201,  280,  289 

15 : 3,  4 223,  290 

15  : 4 116,  289 

15 : 5 108, 109 

15 : 13-1 5 104 

15 : 15 103 

15:16,17 104 

15 : 21-28  . • ....  100 

15 : 21-32 18 

15 : 26 120 

15 : 46 100 

15 : 49 103 

15 : 58 166 

15 : 59 165 

17  : 11, 16 154 


17  : 16 39 

18 : 19 109 

19  : 2 120 

19  : 12 162 

19 : 12,  27,  29,  34  . . . 399 

19  : 32-37  163 

20 : 7-9 163 

21 : 9-15  ......  104 

21 : 28 162 

24 : 4 85, 90, 131 

24 : 7 • . 59 


JUDGES. 


1 : 

9 

. . .66 

1 : 

11 

...  103 

1 : 

13 

. . .154 

1 : 

17 

. 213, 305 

1 : 

27 

...  154 

1 : 

36 

. 81, 124 

3: 

9-11  .... 

. . .104 

3: 

15-18  .... 

. . .388 

4: 

1-13  .... 

. . .332 

4: 

2 

. . .315 

4: 

3 

. . .39 

5: 

14,  19-21  . . 

. . .332 

6: 

1-5,  33  . . . 

. . .331 

6: 

3-6 

. . .315 

6: 

8 

...  59 

6: 

10 

...  65 

6: 

11, 19  ...  . 

. . .36 

6: 

18 

. . .59 

7: 

1,12  .... 

. . .315 

7: 

6-12  .... 

...  163 

8: 

17 

. . .367 

8: 

26 

. . .389 

9: 

46,  47,  49,  51  . 

...  367 

9: 

51 

. . .327 

11 

: 16 

. 316, 358 

11 

: 16, 17  . . . . 

...  23 

11 

: 17 

. . .317 

11 

: 18 

. 131,318 

11 

: 26 

...  100 

1 SAMUEL. 


9:  7 

. . . .388 

10:  24  . . . 

....  334 

15 : 7 . . . . 

. . . 44,  55 

17:  18  . . . . 

....  388 

21 : 8 

....  250 

23 : 14,  24  . . . 

....  68 

25:  1,  2.  . . . 

. . .68,  69 

25 : 18,  19,  23,  27  . . . 388 

27  : 8 41,  44 

31 : 10,  12 154 

2 SAMUEL. 

4:7 70 

11:11 392 

15 : 2 100 

15 : 29 59 

21 : 2 66 

21 : 12 154 

22  : 12  392 

1 KINGS. 

4:12 154 

6 : 5,  19,  22 103 

8:6-8 103 

8:  65 116 

9 : 26  36,  131,  359 

18 : 21-40 419 

19 : 1-18 59 

19 : 4,  5 150 

20 : 12  392 

2 KINGS. 

2:  2,  4/6 59 

5 : 15,  16,  21-23,  26  . . 388 

8 : 8,  9 388 

9 : 17 327,  368,  377 

14 : 7 125 

15 : 29 163 

16:  8 388 

17 : 9 . . 367,  368,  370,  377 
18 : 8 . . 327,  367,  368,  370 
377. 

18:  21 59 

19  : 24 56 

20 : 12  388 

25:  4 70 

25:  5 70 

1 CHRONICLES. 

1 : 53 118 

4 : 28 120 

6 : 76 163 

7 : 29 154 

19 : 3 241 

2 CHRONICLES. 

3 : 16 103 

4:7-9 103 

8 : 17 146 


462 


INDEX  OF  BIBLE  TEXTS. 


TEXT.  PAGE. 

12:  1 131 

14:  7 367 

15:  17 131 

19:  8 131 

20:  2 38,  41 

20 : 7 60 

21:  2 131 

25:  11,  12 125 

26:  9,  10,  15 327 

NEHEMIAH. 

1:1 31 

3:  1,  25,  26,  28  ...  . 367 

9 : 16,  17 17,  22 

11 : 26 120 

12 : 38,  39 367 

ESTHER. 

1:2 31 

JOB. 

1:6 421 

30 : 4 150 

PSALMS. 

17  : 5 286 

31 : 20  392 

48  : 12  367 

61 : 3 367 

63 : 1 289 

78 : 12,  43 380 

78:  43  381 

106  : 37 422 

107  : 35 283 

109  : 6 421 

120:  4 150 

PROVERBS. 

22  : 28  238 

ECCLESIASTES. 

11 : 1 270 

24  : 14 197 


THE  SONG  OF  SOLO- 
MON. 


4:  4 


367 


TEXT. 

PAGE. 

19:  1-18  . . 

59 

19:  5.  . . 

. . . . 348,  349 

19:  6 . . . 

56 

19:  11,  13  . 

380 

19:  18  . . . 

66 

21:  2 . . . 

31 

22:  6 . . . 

39 

23:  8 . . . 

23:  11 . . . 

66 

23 : 13  . . 

. . . . 367,  368 

27:  12  . . 

116 

30 : 4 . . . 

380 

32 : 14  . . 

. . 327,  367,  368 

37 : 25  . . . 

56 

41 : 8 . . . 

60 

JEREMIAH. 

6:  27  . . . 

. 327,  367,  368 

25 : 25  . . 

31 

44 : 1 . . 

370 

46  : 14  . . 

370 

49  : 7,  20  . 

118 

49 : 34-39  . 

31 

EZEKIEL. 

25  : 13  . . 

118 

27  : 15  . . 

388 

29:  6-12  . 

59 

29  : 9, 10  . 

369 

29  : 10  . . 

365 

30  : 5 . . . 

57 

30:  6 . . 

369 

30 : 14  . . 

380 

32 : 24  . . 

31 

47 : 13-21 

119 

47 : 18  . . 

119 

47 : 19  . . 

. . 116, 169, 223 

47:  19;  48: 

28  . . 28,  201, 

308 

48  : 28  . . , 

119 

DANIEL. 

8:2... 

31 

10  : 14  . . 

100 

HOSEA. 

12:  7 . . . 

65 

ZECHARIAH. 

TEXT.  PAGE. 

3:1 421 

JUDITH. 

1 : 7-10 165 

5 : 14 165 

1 MACCABEES. 

5:3 Ill 

11 . 63,  73  165 

MATTHEW. 

2 : 11 388 

17  : 25,  26  266 

LUKE. 

2:  42-45  114 

6 : 29,  30 268 

JOHN. 

5:2-7 178 

ACTS. 

2:9 31 

5 : 1-11 168 

9 : 10 165 

9:  32,  35,  38  154 

ROMANS. 

3:4 139 

11:  1-6 59 

1 CORINTHIANS. 

10  : 4 178. 

10 : 11 22 

GALATIANS. 

1 : 17 59 

3:6-9 60 

3:7-9 59 

4 : 22-26  59 

HEBREWS. 

3 : 8-11,  16-18 59 

4 : 1-11 59 

12 : 16, 17 90 


ISAIAH. 


8: 

14.  . . . 

131 

11 

: 11 . . . 

31 

11 

: 15  . . . 

. . . 109, 348 

18 

: 2.  . . . 

348 

AMOS. 

1:  12 118 

2:  9,  10 65 

JONAH. 

2:5 353 


JAMES. 

2 : 23 60 

REVELATION. 

11 : 8 59 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Abde.  See  ’Abdeh,  El. 

’Abdeh,  El,  confounded  with  El-’Aujeh, 
295. 

Aboo  Retem&t.  See  Retem&t. 

’Adar,  identified  with  Qadayrat,  215, 
280/.,  290,  313. 

Aduma.  See  Aturaa. 

vEgyptos,  a name  of  Egypt,  56. 

.Egyptus,  a name  of  Sesostris,  56. 

ASlanitic  gulf.  See  ’Aqabah,  gulf  of. 

’Agrood.  See  ’Ajrood. 

Aileh.  See  Eloth. 

“ Ain  Khadees.”  See  ’Ayn  Qadees. 

’Ajrood,  probable  location  of  Pi-hahiroth 
at,  406,  422. 

’Akrabbim,  meaning  of  the  word,  109, 

111/. 

’Akrabbim,  Ascent  of:  a turn  in  the 
boundary-line  at,  107  /.,  Ill,  113/.; 
its  proposed  location  in  the  ’Arabah, 
109;  a description,  not  a proper 
name,  111  /.;  its  proposed  location 
at  Pass  es-Suf&h,  111 ; its  proposed 
location  at  Pass  el- Yemen,  111  ff., 
126. 

’Akrood.  See  ’Ajrood. 

“Although,”  Hebrew  word  translated, 
398. 

Amalek,  Arab  traditions  concerning,  41. 

Amalekites,  18,  37,  55,  332 ; Arab  tradi- 
tions of  their  ancestry,  41;  Bible 
account  of  their  ancestry,  40/.,  98; 
field  of  the,  40  /.,  99,  306. 

Amen-Ra,  411  /. 

American  scholars  concerning  Row- 
lands’s  discovery,  223  /. 

’Amir,  ’Ammfirieh,  ’Amr,  forms  of  the 
word  ’Omar,  246. 

Ammon,  oracle  of,  43. 


Amorites,  18,  37 ; location  of  their  terri- 
tory, 65;  a representative  people, 
65  /.;  the  “Highlanders,”  65  /.; 
mountains,  or  hill-country  of,  65  ff.; 
Way  of  the  Hill-country  of.  See 
Road. 

Anastasi  papyri,  See  Papyri  Anastasi. 

Anboo : understood  to  mean  the  Wall,  47 ; 
Egyptian  name  of  a fortification,  48 ; 
a plural  word,  48 ; designates  a line 
of  fortresses,  48  /. 

Anbu.  See  Anboo. 

Apda  Martu,  “ the  Conqueror  of  the 
West,”  32. 

Apocrypha  : Edom  in  the,  1 01 ; Kadesh 
in  the,  165  ff. ; origin  of  the  name 
Kadesh-palm  from  a misreading  in 
the,  197. 

’Aqabah. : fort  of,  42 ; gulf  of,  36 ; name 
Yam  Sooph  applied  to  gulf  of, 
358. 

Arab:  traditions,  41,  131,  135/.;  conser- 
vatism, 72  /. ; pretended  ignorance, 
230,256/.,  294/.;  method  of  ratify- 
ing a contract,  252/.;  estimate  of  the 
value  of  books,  256/.,  261;  use  of 
weapons,  260 ; estimate  of  enemies, 
260;  distinction  between  theft  and 
“tax-collecting,’’  2 65  ff. ; hostilities, 
danger  from,  268/.;  timidity,  265, 
276,  279,  296 ; knowledge  of  the  de- 
sert exaggerated,  279;  method  of 
encampment,  281 ; women  at  Qasay- 
meh,  292 ; short  cut,  292  ff. ; con- 
tempt for  the  truth,  293  /.;  super- 
stitions, 294,  297  ff. ; mode  of  balanc- 
ing an  account,  296  /. ; shrewdness, 
296/. ; dread  of  Christian  invasion, 
298  /. ; unwillingness  to  guide  trav- 
463 


464 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


ellers  to  certain  wells,  298  /. ; tribal 
names,  315 ; changes  in  Hebrew  local 
names,  378. 

Arabs.  See  Bed' ween. 

’Arabah : not  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  69/.; 
309 ; strict  use  of  the  term,  69  /. ; 
Desert  et-Teeh  above  the,  80;  in- 
cluded in  Edom,  99,  132 ; proposed 
location  of  Kadesh  in,  82,  86  /,. 
227  /.,  303  /. ; closed  to  the  Israel- 
ites, 132;  Kadesh  located  in,  by 
Burckhardt,  205/.;  Kadesh  located 
in,  by  Robinson,  209  ff. ; Kadesh 
either  in,  or  at  a much  higher  level, 
304;  ten  proposed  sites  for  Kadesh 
in,  303  /.  See,  also,  Wady  el-’ Arabah. 

Arabia,  34 ; the  Land  of  Training,  59  ff. 

Arad,  king  of,  132,  134,  318. 

’Areesh,  El,  fort  and  village  of,  116. 

Arekeme,  meaning  of  the  word,  175/ 

Ark  of  Moses,  the,  353. 

’Arkub.  See  ’Arqoob. 

’Arqoob : meaning  of  the  word,  112;  as 
an  identification  of  ’Akrabbim,  112  ff. 

Ashteroth  Karnaim,  35. 

Assyria,  44;  highway  from  Egypt  to, 
45. 

Atef,  367;  crown,  367. 

Athareem:  meaning  of  the  word,  316; 
Way  of.  See  Road  of  the  Spies. 

Atuma,  89. 

’Aujeh,  El  : erroneous  location  of  Eboda 
and  El-’Abdeh  at,  87 /*;  a camp  at, 
295  ff;  proposed  identification  of 
Gerar  at,  295 ; ruins  of,  296. 

Avaris : as  a site  of  Migdol,  375 ; pro- 
posed identification  of,  375  /. 

’Ayn,  meaning  of  the  term,  17. 

’Ayn : Hash,  proposed  location  of  Kadesh 
at,  207,  227/,  303. 

Karim,  172,  174. 

Mishpat.  See  En-Mishpat. 

el-Hudhera,  78,  314. 

Muwaylih,  219,  257. 

el-Qadayrat : located  by  Row- 
lands, 220 ; and  ’Ayn  Qadees,  Row- 
lands’s  alleged  confounding  of,  219, 
231/.;  its  existence  denied,  232 ; visit- 
ed, 282/. ; described,  282  ff. ; meaning 
of  the  name,  283  /. ; and  ’Ayn  Qa- 
dees compared,  283 ; departure  from, 
285. 


’Ayn  Qadees : discovered  by  Rowlands, 
213  ff. ; confounded  with  ’Ayn  el- 
Qadayrat,  218  /.;  221;  failures  to 
refind,  229  ff.;  located  by  Stewart 
near  Jebel  Helal,  230;  and  ’Ayn 
Qadayr&t,  Rowlands’s  alleged  con- 
founding of,  231  /.;  difficulty  of 
reaching,  241 ; in  the  ’Azazimeh  ter- 
ritory, 241;  inquiring  for,  255  ff. ; 
258  /. ; first  sight  of,  272 ; described, 
272  ff. ; departure  from,  275 ; com- 
pared with  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  283; 
location  of  Kadesh  at,  303 ; a repre- 
sentative site,  304/.;  objections  to  it 
as  the  site  of  Kadesh,  309  ff. ; the 
argument  for  it  as  a site  of  Kadesh, 

311  ff.;  its  surroundings,  311  ff.; 
319 ; in  Canaan’s  southern  boundary, 

312  /. ; in  relation  to  the  route  of  the 
Isralites,  312  /. ; failing  of  its  waters, 
317. 

Qasaymeh : Azmon  identified  with, 

117;  located  by  Rowlands,  220 ; shown 
to  Bartlett  as  ’Ayn  Qadees,  232; 
Owdy’s  revelation  concerning,  258; 
visited  and  described,  288/.;  its  pos- 
ition relative  to  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat, 
291/. 

esh-Sheh&beh  : as  a site  of  Kadesh, 

225,  227,  303. 

el-Waybeh  : location  of,  209;  de- 
scription of,  209  ff. ; Robinson’s  loca- 
tion of  Kadesh  at,  20§,ff.  303  ; its  lack 
of  present  importance,  210;  Robin- 
son’s later  defense  of,  217  ff. ; a re- 
presentative site,  304  /. ; claims  for 
it  as  a site  of  Kadesh,  305  /.;  objec- 
tions to  it  as  a site  of  Kadesh,  306  ff. 

’Azazimeh.  See  Bed' ween,  ’Az&zimeh. 

’Az&zimeh  mountain  tract,  38  /.;  de- 
scribed, 70  /. ; includes  Wilderness 
of  Zin,  71 ; alternative  road  through, 
82  /. ; ’Ayn  Qadees  in  the,  241 ; diffi- 
culties in  crossing,  297. 

’Azazimat.  See  ’Azazimeh  mountain 
tract. 

Azmon:  identified  with  Qasaymeh,  117, 
215,  289  /.  ; name  given  to  it  in  the 
Targums,  117,  289  /. 

Ba’al  : his  Egyptian  worship  introduced 
by  the  Hykshos,  407  /. ; associated 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


465 


with  Set,  408 ; his  place  in  Egyptian 
mythology,  413  ff. 

Ba’al-Set,  a dualistic  god,  415  ff. 

Ba’al  Shamen,  407  f. 

Ba'al-worship,  cairns  possibly  connected 
with,  287  f. 

Baal-Zephon  : camp  of  the  Israelites  be- 
fore, 402,  405 ; location  of,  407  ff.,  422 
ff. ; the  name  of  a divinity,  407  ff. ; a 
dualistic  god,  413 ; its  place  in 
Egyptian  mythology,  415  ff. ; origin 
of  the  name,  417  /. 

Ba’ali-Tsapuna,  417, 

Ba’ali-Tapoona,  417. 

Babel,  Migdol  of,  373. 

Babylonia,  conquest  of,  31. 

BMiyat  et-Teeh  Beny  Israel,  origin  of 
the  name,  67. 

Bakhsheesh  : required  by  Arabs,  263. 

taking  time  and,  384  ff. ; univer- 
sal demand  for  in  the  East,  386  /. 

Bakhun,  bakhan,  bakhon,  367.  See  also 
bekhen. 

Ball  ah,  Lake,  341, 346  /.,  349,  361  /. 

Banias,  fountain  of,  283. 

Bar,  meanings  of  the  word,  24. 

Barley,  Owdy’s  field  of,  293. 

Barnea,  use  and  meaning  of  the  word, 
24,  165. 

Bashan,  36  /. 

Bathn-Nakhl.  See  Nakhl,  Castle. 

Bayt  ’Ainoon,  165. 

Beard,  Oriental  custom  of  honoring  the, 
253. 

Bed' ween  : meaning  of  the  word,  237. 

their  tribal  unity,  237  /.;  248; 

their  tribal  diversity,  237  /.  See, 
also,  Arab. 

’Alaween,  240. 

’Anazeh,  247  /. 

’Az&zimeh,  205 ; their  location,  240; 

their  superstitions,  240  /.;  in  the 
stronghold  of,  264  ff. ; the  inadvisa- 
bility of  resisting,  268 ; first  meeting 
with  275  /. ; second  meeting  with, 
296#. 

Hawaytat,  240. 

Hayw&t,  239,  315. 

Sa’eediyeh,  94. 

Tawarah : territory  of,  238 ; kind- 
ness and  fidelity  of,  239. 

Teeyahah,  229  /.,  233, 267, 296#  ; 


their  location,  239 ; their  character- 
istics, 240;  their  plundering,  240, 
247/.;  their  deceit,  242. 

Bed'ween  Terabeen : their  friendliness, 
242,  269;  their  assistance  to  Bow- 
lands,  242. 

Wilder  ness- way  of,  into  Egypt, 

362. 

Bed'wy,  its  suggested  correspondence 
with  Barnea,  24. 

Beer,  meaning  of  the  word,  17. 

Beer-lahai-roi.  See  Ilagar’s  Well. 

Beer-Makhdal,  351 ; Tower  of  the  Well 
at,  363,  370;  Migdol  identified  at, 
374. 

Beersheba,  61  #.,  90 ; wilderness  of,  68. 

“ Before,”  Hebrew  word  translated,  405, 
422/. 

Beit  Kerm,  174/ 

Bekhen,  Egyptian  word  for  tower,  368. 
See,  also,  Migdol. 

Bekhon,  a Hebrew  word  corresponding 
with  the  Egyptian  word  bekhen. 
368.  See  also  bekhen. 

Bel.  See  Ba’al. 

Belqa,  El,  location  of,  173#. 

Beny  Israel.  See  Israelites. 

Beny  et-Toor.  See  Bed'ween,  Tawarah. 

Bered : Kadesh  over  against,  44 ; its  lo- 
cation uncertain,  64. 

Betane,  or  Betanoth,  165. 

Beth-Shemesh,  407. 

“Bir-Maktal.”  See  Beer-Makhdal. 

Birket : el-Hajj,.its  similarity  to  Succoth, 
392/ 

Menzaleh,  353. 

Tims&h  See,  333. 

Books,  Arab  estimate  of  their  value, 
256/.,  261. 

Border-Barrier  of  Egypt.  See  Wall  of 
Egypt. 

“ Borrow,”  the  Hebrew  word  translated, 
387. 

11  Bridge,”  El-Qantarah  translated,  339; 
Gisr  translated,  341. 

Bridge  of  the  Philistia  Boad,  339. 

Butm,  meaning  of  the  word,  37. 

Caikns:  in  Wady  Qadees,  270  /.;  in 
Wady  -el-Qadayrat,  280  ; on  Mount 
Ebal,  282;  in  Wady  Sabh  287/ 

Callah  Nahhar.  See  Nakhl,  Castle. 


466 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Camp : finding  the,  286  / ; the  last,  with- 
in the  Wall,  405# 

Camping-ground,  Succoth  name  for  a, 
392/. 

Campaign,  the  first,  of  history,  15,  28, 
31#. 

Canaan : spies  sent  into,  17 ; Israelites’ 
final  move  toward,  23;  permanent 
importance  of,  34 ; the  Land  of  Rest, 
59  ff. ; meaning  of  the  word,  65  / ; 
original  application  of  the  name,  66 ; 
new  line  of  advance  into,  317. 

Canaan’s  southern  boundary  : position  of 
Kadesh  in,  61,  106  /.,  114,  119  #., 
123/.;  Bible  indications  of,  106  ff.; 
Ascent  of  'Akrabbim  at  the  turn  of, 

107  /,  114;  an  attempt  to  trace, 

108  ff. ; indicated  by  Ezekiel,  119  ff. ; 
wedge-shaped,  123 ; identified,  290/  ; 
’Ayn  el-Waybeh  not  in,  309  ; ’Ayn 
Qadees  in,  312  / 

Canaanites,  the  “ Lowlanders,”  65  / 

Canal  of  Egypt : traces  of  its  early  con- 
struction, 51 ; its  help  in  locating  the 
Wall,  51/;  mistaken  for  the  Nile, 
333. 

Caravan  route  between  Egypt  and  Syria, 
61,  64. 

Castle  Nakhl.  See  Nakhl,  Castle. 

Catechising,  Yankee,  255  ff. 

Chalasa,  166. 

Chaloof.  See  Shaloof. 

Chalutz,  El,  name  for  Gerar  in  the  Ara- 
bic Bible,  63. 

Chariots  of  Kedor-la’omer’s  army,  39, 
306. 

Chawatha:  proposed  location  of  Kadesh 
at,  192,  303  ; a probable  mispronun- 
ciation of  Hawwadeh,  192 ; its  posi- 
tion, 193. 

Chelus  or  Chellus,  166. 

Christian : supremacy  lost  in  Palestine, 
188 ; power,  superstitious  dread  of, 
294,  297  ff. ; leniency  implored,  298 /. 

Cistern  in  Wady  Qadees,  270. 

Cisterns,  the  Arabic  word  Hawwadeh 
means,  152,  270. 

ruins  of,  at  Bayt  ’Ainoon,  165. 

City  : Kadesh  not  a,  83 ; meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word  translated,  83  /;  Is- 
raelites not  encamped  in  any  single, 
84;  Migdol  not  name  of  a single, 


378  f;  start  of  the  Israelites  not  from 
a single,  383  / 

City  of  Pharaoh.  See  Rameses. 

Compass,  Hebrew  method  of  marking 
points  of,  44. 

Conclusions,  fair,  320  / 

Consonants,  transposition  of.  See  Semi- 
tic languages,  changes  of  consonants 
in. 

Contract,  Arab  method  of  ratifying  a 252. 

Cottor,  398. 

Coub,  57. 

Crusades,  a gleam  during  the,  186  ff. 


Damietta,  365  / ; other  names  for,  367. 

Dangers  of  the  search  for  ’Ayn  Qadees, 
259/,  265# 

Dapur,  not  Debir,  but  Tabor,  162. 

Darkness,  a ride  in  the,  284  ff. 

Date-palms,  mentioned  by  Seetzen,  283  f. 

Day’s  journey,  a measure  of  distance, 
72#.;  length  of,  73.  See  also  Jour- 
ney, a first  day’s. 

“ Days  of  rest,”  in  the  Bible  story,  391. 

Dead  Sea,  its  southern  end  not  a fixed 
point,  108;  tongue  of  the,  109,  313; 
plain  of  the.  See  Siddim,  vale  of. 

Debeer.  See  Debir. 

Debir:  taken  by  Joshua,  102/;  import- 
ance of,  103  / ; its  true  identification 
at  Dhahareeyah,  104 ; a faulty  identi- 
fication of,  161  / 

Debooreyeh,  162. 

DeJukah,  king,  “El-Ajoos,”  or  the 
“Old  Woman,”  49. 

Derekh.  See  Road,  Hebrew  word  for. 

Desert:  junction  of  roads  of,  42;  travel, 
fresh  hints  from,  203  ff. ; dangers,  265 
ff. ; lost  in  the,  278#,  284#.;  god  of 
the,  420;  of  the  wanderings.  See 
also,  Teeh,  Desert  et. 

Dhahareeyah  : Debir  identified  at , 104, 
163 ; considered  a frontier  town,  104 
/;  inhabitants  of,  315. 

Dhaygat  el-Amureen,  66. 

Dhoheriyeh,  Edh.  See  Dhahareeyah. 

Discovery  of  Rowlands,  the,  211  ff. ; Ger- 
man scholars  concerning,  216  /,  222 
/ ; English  scholars  concerning,  223 ; 
American  scholars  concerning,  223 
/;  its  truth  established,  274/ 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


467 


Distances,  Oriental  method  of  calculating 

nff. 

Dowars,  281. 

Dragoman:  Rowlands’s  221,  232  /.; 
meaning  of  the  term,  243 ; duties  of 
the,  243  /.;  help  from  a notable, 
260#. 

Dromedary : and  camel,  difference  be- 
tween, 253  /. ; run-away  of  the  drag- 
oman’s; 275:  seized  by  the  ’Azazi- 
meh,  296. 

Dyke,  the  Old  Woman’s.  See  Gisr  el- 
Agoos. 

Ebal,  Mount,  stone  enclosures  on,  281. 

Eboda,  its  proposed  location  atEl-’Aujeh, 
87/. 

Edom:  messengers  sent  to  the  king  of, 
23,  317  /.;  the  mountains  of,  23; 
ancient  reach  of,  28,  84  #.,  101 ; Ka- 
desh  in  the  border  of,  67,  82  #. , 
its  relation  to  Seir,  84  #. ; not  limited 
to  Mount  Seir,  85;  modern  errors 
concerning  the  boundaries  of,  85  #. ; 
earliest  mention  of,  89 ; meaning  of 
the  word,  89 ; part  of  the  ’Az&zimeh 
mountain  tract  in,  93 ; Bible  indica- 
tions of  its  location,  100 ; historical 
indications  of  its  location,  100  /. 

Effendi,  use  of  the  term,  262. 

Egypt : Shur  before,  44 ; significance  of 
its  ancient  name,  56  /.  ; the  Land  of 
Bondage,  59  #.,  188;  the  world’s 
treasury  of  food,  339 ; River  of,  or, 
Torrent  of.  See  Wady  el-’Areesh. 

Egyptian : kings,  their  boastfulness,  52 ; 
language,  sign  of  the  plural  in,  329 ; 
records,  mention  of  more  than  one 
road  in,  372  ; mythology,  gods  of  the, 
409  #. 

Egyptians : spoils  of  the,  389  ; their  de- 
struction in  the  Red  Sea,  427  /. 

Eighteenth  Century  attempts  to  identify 
Kadesh  203/. 

El,  meaning  of  the  word,  36. 

Elam,  32  /.  ; location  of,  31 ; road  from, 
to  Syria,  35. 

Elephantine,  365  /. 

Eleven  days’  course,  an,  71  #. 

El-Paran : meaning  of  the  name,  36 ; 
Castle  Nakhl  probably  the  site  of, 
36/.,  243. 


Elusa,  58,  63,  181;  a proposed  site  of 
Kadesh,  227  ; a center  of  Pagan  wor- 
ship, 166;  See,  also,  Khaloos,  El. 

Embasch,  proposed  location  of  Kadesh 
at,  206,  303. 

Empire,  Old,  Middle,  and  New,  Egyp- 
tian, 46  /. 

Encounter,  a bloodless,  275  # 

“ Entangled,”  Hebrew  word  translated, 
399/ 

En-gedi,  38,  40,  306. 

English  scholars  concerning  Rowlands’s 
discovery,  223. 

En-mishpat,  37,  41  /.,  67,  153  ; a name  of 
Kadesh,  17 ; origin  of  the  name,  43  ; 
located  in  Gerar  by  Eusebius  and 
Jerome,  180.  See,  also,  Fountain  of 
Judgment. 

Erways  el-Ebayrig,  suggested  as  the  site 
of  Kibroth-hattaavah,  142,  144,  314. 

Esau,  meaning  of  the  word,  89. 

Etham : as  a substitute  for  Shur,  327  ; a 
name  of  the  wall  of  Egypt,  328  #. ; 
its  identity  with  Khetam,  328 ; Sep- 
tuagint  rendering  of  the  word,  336. 

Et^Teeh.  See  Teeh,  Desert  et. 

Euphrates,  Kedor-la’omer’s  route  along 
the,  35. 

Exodus : Kadesh  in  the  days  of  the,  65  #.  ; 
route  of  the,  325  #. ; an  old  time 
theory  of  the,  333;  “preconceived 
theories”  of  the,  356,  374;  prepara- 
tion for  the,  3S6#.;  alleged  difficul- 
ties in  announcing  the  start  upon  the, 
390  /.  See,  also,  Route  of  the  Israel- 
ites. 

Ezion-gaber:  location  of,  146;  proposed 
location  of  Kadesh  near,  303. 

Failures  to  refind  Rowlands’s  site, 
229# 

Favoring  circumstances  at  Nakhl,  247 #. 

Fat’hat.  See  Quran,  first  chapter  of. 

Father,  an  Oriental,  honored  by  having 
sons,  90  /. 

Father’s  injunction,  a,  253. 

Fayran,  its  connection  with  Paran,  69. 

Field  enclosures.  See  Hazeroth. 

“Field,”  Hebrew  word  translated,  99. 

Fortified  Land.  See  Walled  Land. 

Fortresses,  Anboo  designates  a line  of, 
48/ 


468 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Fountain  : of  Judgment:  Kadesli  becom- 
ing, 17 ; a second  time  becoming,  23. 
See,  also,  En-mishpat. 

of  Miriam,  a name  of  the  Rock 

of  Kadesh,  172,  177. 

on  the  ShUr  Road,  44. 

Frontier  Wall.  See  Wall  of  Egypt. 

Gailu,  or  Garu,  proposed  identification 
of,  332. 

Gar-’imirisv,  66. 

Gaza : road  to,  42  ; a sweep  to,  102  ff. 

Gebel  ’Ataqah,  423. 

Gebel  e-’  Tayr,  remains  of  the  Wall  at,  50. 

Gelamsour,  possible  meaning  of  the 
term,  55/. 

Geneffeh,  heights  of,  343 

Geographical  Studies : lack  of,  186 ; revi- 
val of,  195. 

Gerar,  44 ; sojourn  of  Abraham  at,  60 ; and 
Bered,  61  ff.;  proposed  identifica- 
tions of,  62  ff. ; well  in  the  valley  of, 
62 ; located  by  Eusebius,  180 ; its  pro- 
bable identification  at  El-’Aujeh,  295. 

Gerrhon,  or  Gerrha,  Greek  translation  of 
Anboo,  48. 

Gerrhon  horion,  the  Boundary -Wall,  55 

German  scholars  concerning  Rowlands’s 
discovery,  216  /.,  222  /. 

Ghor,  ’Arabah  a continuation  of  the,  69  /. 

Ghubbet-el-bus,  355. 

Gifts:  Oriental  custom  of  demanding, 
386  ff.;  the  Israelites  instructed  to 
ask  for,  386  /.,  389. 

Gilgal,  392. 

Gisr : meaning  and  use  of  the  word,  50, 
339,  341  /. ; El-Qantarah  distinguish- 
ed from,  339. 

El : plateau  of  341  /. ; its  ancient 

level,  346  ff.,  361/. 

el-Ago6s,  50: 

Goshen,  Land  of : assigned  to  the  Israel- 
ites, 380  /. ; at  some  distance  from 
Pharaoh’s  capital  city,  381  /. ; its 
probable  identification  with  Wady 
Toomil^t,  382  /. ; its  shape,  383,  394. 

Grain-magazine,  a,  270. 

Grave  of  Miriam,  possible  identification 
of,  278. 

Guides : TerUbeen,  242 ; Tawarah,  239, 
244  ; Teeyahah,  244,  295. 

“ Guisr-el-Qantliarah,”  362. 


Hagak’s  Well:  its  importance,  44; 
proposed  locations  of : 64,  213. 

“ Hagges,”  caravan  of  the,  398. 

Hahiroth.  See  Pi-hahiroth. 

Hajj  : meaning  of  the  word,  386  /. 

road,  traversed  by  Kedor-la’omer, 

36.  See,  also,  Road,  Red  Sea. 

Halak,  Mount,  28  ; meaning  of  the  name, 
94 ; identified,  95  ff. ; its  name  pre- 
served in  Es-Sufah,  96. 

Halougah,  identified  with  Elusa,  57  /. 

Halting-place,  a strategic,  42. 

Hamdh,  the  young  shaykh,  251  ff.,  262. 

Hanein,  or  Hanayn.  See  Wady  Hanayn. 

Hawwadeh,  meaning  of  the  word,  192. 
See,  also,  Chawatha. 

Haywat  and  Hivite,  correspondence  of 
the  names,  315/.  See,  also,  Bed'- 
ween,  Haywat. 

Hazar,  use  of  the  word,  281.  See  also, 
Hezron. 

Hazerim.  See  Hazeroth. 

Hazeroth  : Israelites’  second  encampment 
at,  148,  314;  “Field  Enclosures,” 
281/.;  location  of,  314/. 

Hazezon-tamar,  38,  306. 

Hebron : roads  to,  42 ; captured  by  Josh- 
ua, 102 ; mountain  ascent  to,  276 ; 
difficulties  of  the  route  to,  251, 
297/. 

Heroopolis,  location  of,  340, 346. 

Hezron,  finding  the  ruins  of,  280/. 

Highlanders.  See  Amorites. 

Hivites.  See  Haywat  and  Bed'ween, 
Haywat. 

Holy  Land.  See  Canaan. 

Hor-hagidad,  138. 

Hor  ha-Hor.  See  Hor,  Mount. 

Hor,  Mount,  28,  305 ; a descriptive  title, 
127  ; its  traditional  site  unreason- 
able, 129  ff.,  208 ; its  probable  site 
at  Jebel  Madurah,  132  ff. ; death  of 
Aaron  at,  317. 

Horeb,  distance  of  Kadesh-barnea  from, 
71. 

Horites,  dwellers  in  caves,  88. 

Horse,  its  introduction  into  Egypt,  39/. 

Horus,  an  Egyptian  sun-god,  409/ 

Horus-Set,  414. 

Hykshos,  the,  39, 46  /. ; the  Wall  levelled 
by,  52;  Ba’al-worship  introduced 
into  Egypt  by,  407  ff.,  413. 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


469 


Ibraheem,  the  young  shaykh,  251. 

Idumea.  See  Edom. 

“ In,”  Hebrew  word  translated,  396. 

Inscriptions:  in  Wady  Umm  ’A'sheen, 
277/.;  in  Wady  el-Mukatteb,  277; 
at  Karnak.  See  Karnak. 

Interpreter.  See  dragoman. 

Isis,  409. 

Isma’ileeya,  ancient,  341;  road  toward, 
349/ 

Israelites:  their  rebellion  at  Kadesh, 
17  / ; their  encouragement  from  the 
story  of  Abraham,  59  ff. ; their  most 
natural  course  Canaanward,  82 ; 
their  organization  at  Sinai,  140  /., 
310;  their  start,  383  ff.,  390;  their 
first  encampment,  at  Kibroth-hat- 
taavah,  313;  their  second  encamp- 
ment, at  Hazeroth,  314;  their  third 
encampment,  at  Wady  Qadees,  316  ; 
their  advance  into  Canaan,  317  ff.  ; 
the  barrier  to  their  passage,  325  ff. ; 
commanded  to  take  the  Red  Sea 
Road,  361 ; their  location  in  Egypt, 
380 ; their  starting-point,  380  ff.,  396 ; 
their  rendezvous  at  Succoth,  384, 
392 ; time  of  their  departure,  385  ff. ; 
commanded  to  turn  southward,  398 ; 
their  last  camp  within  the  Wall, 
405  ff. ; their  fear  of  the  Egyptians, 
424  /. ; their  passage  of  the  Red  Sea, 
426  /. ; their  song  of  rejoicing,  428 ; 
route  of.  See  Route  of  the  Israel- 
ites. 

Jebel:  Anaygeh,  264. 

’Ar&eef  en-N&qah,  38,  42, 81,  318  ; 

Kadesh  north  of,  67 ; southwest  of 
the  ’Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  138, 
254. 

Hawwadeh,  “ Mountains  of  the 

Cisterns,”  264,  270/ 

el-Helal,  42,  255. 

“ el-Kudeis,”  230. 

Ikhrimm,  254. 

Madurah,  113,  312,  317  ; identifi- 
cation of  Mount  Hor  at,  132  ff. ; de- 
scribed and  located,  133  ff.  ; tradi- 
tions concerning,  136 ; proposed 
location  of  Kadesh  at,  303. 

Mawweeqa,  or  Miawaykah,  269. 

“ Meraifig,”  264. 


Jebel : Moosa,  77. 

Mu’arrb,  or  Muarib,  269. 

Mugharah,  location  of,  350. 

Muqrah,  38,  83 ; proposed  loca- 
tion of  Kadesh  near,  227,  304. 

Muwayleh,  42,  66,  255,/. 

Neby  H&roon,  traditional  site  of 

Mount  Hor  at,  131  /.,  146  /. 

Qadees,  269, 319. 

er-Raliah : proposed  location  of 

Shur  in,  45  ; not  before  Egypt,  46. 

“ es-Sur,”  45. 

et-Teeh,  45. 

Yeleq,  255,  349. 

Jeroor,  equivalent  of  Gerar,  255. 

Jifar,  Desert  el,  58. 

Jisr.  See  Gisr. 

Jordan,  Valley  of  the,  34. 

Jorf,  meaning  of  the  word,  96. 

Journey : a “ three  days/  ” 142  ff. ; a 
first  day’s,”  143  ff.,  254 ; Hebrew 
word  for  commencing  a,  381  /. 

“ Journeying,”  Hebrew  term  for,  145  . 
Judah’s  southern  boundary.  See  Ca- 
naan’s southern  boundary . 

Kadesh  : meaning  of  the  word,  16,  24/., 
64, 150/.,  275 ; wrongly  distinguished 
from  Kadesh-barnea,  180  /.,  189, 
200  /. ; the  error  of  counting  a second, 
189,  200  ff.;  this  error  disproved, 
200  ff.  See,  also,  Kadesh-barnea. 

Desert  of,  181,  197. 

mountain  before.  See  Mountain 

before  Kadesh. 

Naphtali.  See  Kedesh-Naphtali. 

of  the  Amorites,  125,  160/  ; iden- 
tified with  Kedesh-Naphtali,  162  ff.  ; 
not  Kadesh-barnea,  164/ 

of  the  Hittites,  125,  159  / 

on  the  Orontes.  See  Kadesh  of 

the  Hittites. 

palm,  197. 

Wilderness  of,  its  proposed  loca- 
tion and  extent,  180. 

Kadesh-barnea:  a strategic  stronghold, 
15,  84,  325;  importance  of,  15,  22 
ff.,  27  /;  in  story  and  prophecy, 
15  ff. ; names  of,  150  /. ; meaning 
of  the  name,  16,  25;  origin  of  the 
name,  24 ; history  at,  17 ; spies 
sent  from,  17,  316;  becoming  En- 


470 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


mishpat,  17,  23,  153 ; a rallying 
point,  19 ; halt  of  the  Israelites  at, 
19  ff. ; events  at,  22  ff. ; typical 
character  of  the  halt  at,  22 ; messen- 
gers sent  from,  23 ; becoming  Meri- 
bah,  23,  153,  169;  the  linkings  of, 
24;  its  first  mention  in  the  Bible, 
31 ; its  first  appearance  in  history, 
35,  43;  approached  by  Kedor’-la’- 
omer,  37;  location  of,  41,  43,  117; 
not  the  original  name,  43,  150,  153 ; 
over  against  Bered  and  Shur,  44; 
and  Shur,  Abraham’s  sojourn  be- 
tween, 58  ff. ; typical  significance  of, 
61 ; reached  by  the  Israelites,  65;  in 
the  Amorite  hill-country,  66 ; in  the 
’Azazimeh  mountain  tract,  71 ; not  a 
city,  84;  modern  errors  in  locating, 
86  ff.;  in  the  march  of  Joshua,  102, 
106  ; in  the  western  border  of  Edom, 
102 ; as  a boundary  landmark,  106 
ff. ; as  the  Rock,  124/.;  in  the  list 
of  stations,  147  f. ; in  the  Wilderness 
of  Paran,  148  /;  identified  with 
Rithmah,  150  ff. ; Bible  aids  to  its 
locating,  155;  in  the  Egyptian  re- 
cords, 159  ff. ; Kadesh  of  the  Arnor- 
ites  not,  164/ ; in  the  Apocrypha, 
164  ff. ; in  the  rabbinical  writings, 
167  . ; in  the  early  Christian  name 
lists,  178  ff.;  and  Petra,  confounded 
by  Jerome,  179/;  Eusebius’s  location 
180,  1S6,  193;  why  it  dropped  from 
notice,  185/;  mediaeval  errors  in  lo- 
cating, 188  ff. ; and  Kadesh,  first  dis- 
tinction between,  made  by  “ Rashi,” 
189;  Maimonides’s  location,  189; 
Marino  Sanuto’s  location,  190;  Van 
Hamelsveld’s  location,  204;  “Ra- 
shi’s  ” location,  189 ; Breydenbach 
and  Fabri’s  location,  191  ff. ; located 
by  maps  in  early  editions  of  the 
printed  Bible,  193  /.;  located  in 
early  maps  of  Palestine,  194  ff. ; 
Ziegler’s  location,  195;  Adrichomi- 
us’s  location,  196/;  Munster’s  loca- 
tion, 196;  Ortelius’s  location,  196; 
Bunting’s  location,  197/  ; Montano’s 
location,  199, 303  ; Raleigh’s  location, 
199;  Quaresmius’s  location,  199; 
Blaeu’s  location,  199 ; Dapper’s  lo- 
cation, 199;  Ileidmann’s  location, 


199  ; Homann’s  location,  199 ; San- 
son’s location,  199;  Spanheim’s  lo- 
cation, 199  ; Rogers's  location,  199 ; 
Antonio  of  Castile’s  location,  199 ; Fu- 
rer’s  location,  200 ; Schweigger’s  loca- 
tion, 200 ; Lighttoot’s  location,  200 
/ ; Shaw’s  location,  203  / ; Pococke’s 
location,  204 ; Seetzen’s  location, 
204  ff. ; Burckhardt’s  location,  205 ; 
Laborde’s  location,  206 ; Von  Rau- 
mer’s  location,  206/  ; Stephens’s  lo- 
cation, 207  ; Lord  Lindsay’s  location, 
207 ; Bertou’s  location,  207 ; Robin- 
son’s location,  208  ff. ; Rowlands’s 
location,  211  ff.,  303;  Tuch’s  loca- 
tion, 216  /;  Wilson’s  location,  217  ; 
Ewald’s  location,  222  Ritter’s  loca- 
tion, 222;  Schwarz’s  location,  222; 
Fries’s  location,  222;  /;  Wm. 
Smith’s  location,  225  / ; Conder’s  lo- 
cation, 227  /;  Unruh’s  location, 
227 ; Reuss’s  location,  227 ; Berg- 
haus’s  location,  227 ; Buddeus’s 
location,  227 ; Bassler’s  location, 
227;  Von  Gerlach’s  location,  227, 
303;  Stanley’s  location,  228;  lo- 
cated at  Chawatha,  192  /,  303; 
west  of  the  ’Arabah,  194,  196  f., 
200,  202 ; near  Castle  Nakhl,  203  / ; 
303 ; near  Mount  Sinai,  204,  303 ; in 
the  ’Arabah,  199,  205  ff.,  217/,  303; 
at  Embasch,  206,  303 ; at  ’ Ayn  Hasb, 
206  /,  303;  near  Jebel  Madurah, 
207,  303 ; at  ’Ayn  el-Waybeh,  209 
ff.,  303;  at  ’Ayn  Qadees,  213  ff.,  216 
ff.,  303;  at  Wady  Gay  an,  222,  303; 
at  ’Ayn  esh-SheMbeh,  225,  303; 
at  El-Khaloos,  227,  303;  at  Wady 
Ghuwayr,  227,303;  near  Jebel  Muq- 
rah,  227 ; near  Ezion-gaber,  227  /, 
303;  at  Wady  Feqreh,  228,  303;  its 
Arab  guardians,  237  ff. ; departure  of 
the  Israelites  from,  318. 

Kadessa,  207. 

Kaina,  Lake  of,  332. 

Kana’an,  identifying  the  fortress  of, 
331/ 

Kanal  von  Heroopolis,  333. 

Karkaa : meaning  of  the  word,  289  / ; 
located,  290. 

Karnak  : geographical  lists  in  the  Temple 
of,  62  /;  mention  of  Kadesh  in 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


471 


ruins  at,  160 ; temple  ruins  at,  160, 
330,  332/.,  351,  368,  375. 

Kedar-el-Ahmar,  32. 

“ Kdeis,”  name  of  Qadees  heard  by  Seet- 
zen. 

Kedes.  See  Kedesh-Naphtali. 

Kedesli-Naphtali,  125 ; identified  with 
Kadesh  of  the  Amorites,  162  ff. 

Kedor-la’omer  : his  campaign  on  an  un- 
precedented scale,  32  /. ; his  cam- 
paign, objects,  of  33  ff.;  his  sway, 
revolt  against,  35 ; his  route,  35  ff., 
74,  83,  305,  360. 

Kedor-nakhunta,  31/. 

Kerek,  174,  176. 

Kerm,  connected  with  Buqeem,  174. 

Khabour,  35. 

Ivhagra,  derivation  of  the  word,  57. 

Khalaq.  See  Halak,  Mount. 

Khaloos,  El,  proposed  location  of  Kadesh 
at,  227,  303. 

“ Khan  el-Hawa,di,”  meaning  of  the 
name,  193. 

Khashm  Usdum,  110. 

Khetam:  identical  with  Etham,  327/., 
335  /. ; various  references  to  it  as 
Wall  of  Egypt,  328  ff. ; Egyptian 
name  for  a fortress,  328  ; not  a single 
fortress,  334 ; meaning  of  the  word, 
335,  337 ; in  Egyptian  and  Semitic 
languages,  335  ff. ; rejection  of  the 
initial  Klie,  335 ; its  relation  to  the 
Philistia  Boad,  361. 

of  Meneptah,  329. 

of  Thukoo,  329. 

of  Zor,  328  /.,  331 ; proposed  loca- 
tion of,  332/. 

Khetamoo,  plural  of  Khetam,  328  ff. 

Khetamu.  See  Khetamoo. 

Kibroth-hattaavah : encampment  of  the 
Israelites  at,  142,  313  ; proposed  iden- 
tification of,  142. 

Koran.  See  Qur&n  : 

Kudur,  meaning  of  the  word,  32. 

Kudur-mabuq,  or  mabuk,  32. 

Kurnub,  proposed  location  of  Thamar  at, 
122. 

Lakes,  Bitter,  346.  See,  also,  Bed  Sea. 

Land  of  Bondage.  See  Egypt. 

of  Promise,  or  of  Best.  See  Ca- 

naan. 


Land  of  Training.  See  Arabia. 

the  bottom.  See  Karka’a. 

the  fortified.  See  Egypt. 

Lands,  three  typical,  187  /. 

Languages,  mingling  of  Egyptian  and 
Semitic,  335/. 

Laomer  or  Lagamar,  32. 

Lisan,  El.  See  Dead  Sea,  Tongue  of. 

Locusts,  the  plague  of,  357  /. 

Lowlanders.  See  Canaanites. 

Luxor,  ruins  at,  368. 

Maaleh,  meaning  of  the  word,  126. 

Maaleh-acrabbim.  See  ’Akrabbim,  As- 
cent of. 

Mackati,  193. 

“ Maderah  ” and  “ Adar,”  suggested 
correspondence  between,  228. 

Madurah,  meaning  of  the  word,  135. 

Magdala,  name  of  various  places,  372. 

Magdolon,  375. 

Magdolum,  365,  375. 

Makhdal  and  Maqtaleh,  378. 

Maktal,  El,  probable  site  of  a Migdol  at, 
377/. 

Makthal  and  Migdol,  364. 

Makthel.  See  Makthal. 

Map-making,  development  of,  193  ff. 

Map  of  Palestine : attributed  to  Maimon- 
ides,  189  /. ; Marino  Sanuto’s,  190 
/.  ; the  earliest,  190,  193  ff. ; in  Pto- 
lemy’s Geography,  194/.,  345. 

Maon,  Wilderness  of,  68. 

Maqtaleh,  its  correspondence  with  Makh- 
dal, 378. 

Marble-shaft  in  Wady  Qadees,  270/. 

Maschtul,  374. 

Matsor.  See  Mizraim. 

Mazayriat,  “ little  plantations,”  271. 

Mazor : Land  of,  57 ; border-barrier  of, 
328  ; Great  Wall  of,  329.  See,  also, 
Mitzraim. 

Mazur,  Assyrian  name  for  Egypt,  57. 

Medeenet  Aboo,  373  ; ruins  at,  368. 

Mediaeval  writers,  their  mistakes  con- 
cerning Kadesh,  188/*. 

Mediterranean,  no  ancient  connection  be- 
tween Bed  Sea  and,  343  ff. 

Mejdel,  377. 

Memphis,  gates  of,  326. 

Meribah  : meaning  of  the  word  ; Kadesh 
becoming,  23,  153,  169. 


472 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Meshtol,  374. 

Mesjid,  Ibr&heem,  .205. 

Meskinoth,  meaning  of  the  word,  379. 

Meter  abu  Sofieh,  245. 

Menzaleh,  Lake,  357. 

Midianites,  332,  389. 

Migdol : the  theory  of  one  at  Tell  es-  Sa- 
moot,  363  ff. ; 37  f. ; a Hebrew  name, 
364  /. ; alleged  correspondence  of 
Samhud  with,  366  /.  ; meaning  and 
use  of  the  word,  367  /.,  377  ; no  one 
city  of  the  name,  370,  378;  at  the 
Shur  Road,  at  Bir  Makhdal,  374  /. ; 
probable  existence  of  one  at  Tell  Et 
Heer,  375  /. ; at  the  Red  Sea  Road, 
376 ; probable  site  at  Mukhala,  406, 
422. 

of  Babel,  373. 

of  King  Setee  Meneptah,  48,  363, 

371,  373. 

of  Rameses  Haq-On,  371,  373. 

Migdols : of  the  Great  Wall,  326 ; the 
many,  364  ff. 

Mizraim : ancient  name  of  Egypt,  56  /. ; 
the  two  Matsors,  57. 

Moab,  36 ; the  mountains  of,  23 ; messen- 
gers sent  to  the  king  of,  23,  317; 
plains  of,  31 8. 

Moil&hi,  or  Moil&hhi,  64,  213. 

Mon  tala,  377. 

Mosera,  135. 

Moserah,  plain  of,  317. 

Moseroth.  See  Mosera. 

Mountain  northward,  from  Kadesh:  its  pro- 
posed identification  near  ’Ayn  el- 
Waybeh,  219  /.;  identified  near 
’Ayn  Qadees,  276  /. 

Mountain : of  the  Cisterns.  See  Jebel 
HawwMeh. 

that  goeth  up  to  Seir.  See  Seir. 

the  mountain.  See  Hor,  Mount. 

the  Smooth,  94. 

Move  : northward,  9,  253. 

the  first  united,  395  ff. 

Muhammad  Ahmad,  “ 8 Silk  Bazar,  Al- 
exandria,” 260  ff.,  284. 

Muhammad,  the  waiter,  263. 

MukMfeh,  El,  377. 

Muktala,  El,  377,  406. 

Muntala,  El,  377. 

Muntilr,  377. 

Muntarah,  377. 


Muntula,  El,  406. 

Mutallah,  377. 

Nakhl,  Castle : its  probable  identification 
with  El-Paran,  37,  343;  suggested 
meanings  of  the  name,  37,  117  ; pro- 
posed location  of  Kadesh  at,  203  /., 
303 ; as  a new  caravan  starting-point, 
243/.,  393 ; favoring  circumstances  at, 
247  ff 

Name  lists,  Kadesh-barnea  in  the  early 
Christian,  178  ff. 

Naqb : Fah&deh,  254. 

Hawy,  276. 

es-Sufah,  227 ; proposed  location 

of  Kadesh-barnea,  near  304. 

Negeb:  28,  67,  295;  a proper  noun,  18  ; 
entered  by  the  Israelites,  18;  ex- 
plored by  Palmer,  231;  Abraham’s 
approach  to,  69. 

Night,  a restless,  259 ; Eastern  custom  of 
travelling  by,  397/.;  march  of  the 
Israelites,  427. 

Night’s  journey,  reckoning  distances  by 
a,  397. 

Nile  : Pelusiac  arm  of  the,  332 ; ancient 
position  of  its  mouths,  345 ; identified 
as  the  Egyptian  Sea,  348/. 

Nubti.  See  Set. 

“ Nukb  es-Sufa.”  See  Naqb  es-Suf&h. 

Occupancy,  traces  of  old-time,  269  ff. 

’Omar,  other  forms  of  the  word,  246. 

Ombos,  413. 

Onomasticon,  its  value,  178/. 

Osiris,  an  Egyptian  sun-god,  409  ff. 

Othom,  336. 

Owdy,  the  guide,  251  ff. 

PADAN-aram,  92. 

Palestine:  Christian  supremacy  lost  in, 
188;  the  Land  of  Rest,  59  ff.,  188; 
earliest  maps  of,  189  ff. ; See,  also, 
Canaan. 

Papyrus,  Harris,  371. 

Berlin  Hieratic,  No.  I.,  46,  326. 

First  Sallier,  326, 408, 415. 

Third  Sallier,  416  /. 

Papyri,  Anastasi,  47,  326,  329  /.,  363, 
397. 

Paran.  See  Paran,  Wilderness  of. 


TOPICAL  INDEX, 


473 


Paran  : palm  grove  of,  37. 

Wilderness  of,  28,  37  /.,  41,  378  • 

and  Kadesh  spoken  of  interchange- 
ably, 17 ; in  the  song  of  Moses,  22 ; 
Kadesh  in,  67 ; its  varied  extent,  67 
ff. ; and  Zin,  67  ff. ; earlier  name  of 
the  Desert  et-Teeh,  68 ; main  road 
across,  81 ; spies  sent  from,  148. 

Pass  es-Sufah.  See  Suf&h,  Pass  es. 

of  the  Winds,  276. 

Pelusium  to  Heliopolis,  extent  of  the 
Wall  from,  49/.,  51. 

Pentapolis,  kings  of  the,  40. 

Petra : its  relation  to  Reqem,  167  ff.,  173 ; 
its  relation  to  Kadesh,  169  /.,  173 ; 
more  than  one,  173. 

of  Edom,  175;  not  the  SePa  Of 

the  Amoritish  boundary,  125  / ; its 
ruins  discovered,  205  /.;  proposed 
location  of  Kadesh  at,  223/.,  304. 

of  Moab,  175. 

Pharaonic  Road,  the  great  easterly,  361. 

Philistines,  land  of : in  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs,  62;  Way  of  the.  See 
Road,  Philistia. 

Phi-yom-en-Shari,  355. 

Phoenicians,  65/ 

Pi-hahiroth  : an  order  to  encamp  before, 
399 ; encampment  at,  402 ; a faulty 
location  ofr  405 ; its  probable  iden- 
tification at  ’Ajrood,  406/.,  422. 

Pilgrimage : places  of,  indicated  by  Sina- 
itic  inscriptions,  277 ; Umm  A'sheen, 
a place  of,  277  /. ; the  yearly  Mek- 
keh,  386 ; the  method  of  travelling 
on  a,  397. 

Pilgrimages  to  the  Holy  Land,  me- 
diaeval, 191  ff. 

Pilgrims,  discoveries  of,  191  ff. 

Pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  285,  397  /. 

Pithom,  332 ; its  probable  identification 
with  Pi-tum,  394;  its  probable  loca- 
tion at  Tell  el-Maskhootah,  395. 

Pi-tum.  See  Pithom. 

Place  of  enclosure.  See  Hezron. 

Plagues  of  Egypt,  381  /.,  389. 

Plain,  cities  of  the,  35,  38 ; their  location, 
40. 

Points  now  made  clear,  429  /. 

Protest,  an  Az&zimeh,  298  /. 

Promised  Land.  See  Canaan. 

Pursuit,  unlooked-for,  423  ff. 


Qadayrat,  connection  of  the  name  with 
Hazar  and  Hezron,  280  /.,  290. 

Qadees,  Arabic  equivalent  for  Hebrew 
Kadesh,  275.  See,  also,  ’Ayn  Qa- 
dees. 

Qadhesh,  16. 

Qadoos,  205. 

Qala’at  ’Ajrood,  377. 

Qantarali,  El : translations  of  the  term, 
339 ; not  the  same  meaning  as  Gisr, 
339 ; ancient  level  of  its  region,  347, 
361/ 

Qasaymeh : Azmon  identified  in  the  name. 
289  /. ; meaning  of  the  name,  291. 
See,  also,  ’Ayn  Qasaymeh. 

Qaysam,  or  Qesam.  See  Qasaymeh. 

Qodesh.  See  Kadesh. 

Qosem,  the  chief  city  of  Goshen,  395. 

Quds,  El,  16. 

Quran : name  Ruqeem  in  the,  170 ; recit- 
ing the  first  chapter  of  the,  252 ; 
Arab  pledge  of  faith  on  the,  258. 

Ra,  an  Egyptian  sun-god,  409  ff. 

Raamses  and  Rameses,  alleged  identity 
of,  380/ 

Rabbinical  writings,  Kadesh-barnea  in 
the,  167  ff, 

Ragam,  root  meaning  of  the  word,  171  /. ; 
its  relation  to  Reqam,  171  /. 

R&hah,  Er,  276. 

Rainfall,  Arab  superstition  concerning 
the  influence  of  Christians  over,  294. 

Rakim,  174, 176. 

Rameses : a district,  not  a city,  379  /.,  382 ; 
probable  site  of,  379  ff.;  its  alleged 
identity  with  Raamses,  380/.;  land 
of,  380/ 

Rameseum,  ruins  of  the,  368. 

R&s  ’Amir,  66. 

Fasooah,  269. 

“Rashi,”  pseudonym  of  Solomon  ben 
Isaac,  151. 

Rebellion  : of  the  Israelites,  at  Kadesh, 
17  ff.,  277 ; of  Korah’s  company,  22. 

Recem  Superbam,  171. 

Red  Sea  : origin  of  the  name,  89  ; no  an- 
cient connection  with  the  Mediter- 
ranean, 342  ff.;  Hebrew  name  for 
the,  352  ff. ; marine  growths  at  bot- 
tom of  the,  354  / ; vegetation  along 
its  shores,  356 ; Israelites’  crossing  of 


474 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


the,  391,  426  ; place  of  the  Israelites’ 
crossing,  402  f. ; its  identity  with  the 
Bible  Yam  Sooph,  402 ; the  Egyptians 
swallowed  up  by  the,  427  /.  See, 
also  Yam  Sooph. 

Red  Sea : Way  of  the.  See  Road. 

Reeds,  Sea  of,  355,  360. 

Rehoboth,  its  supposed  identification,  63, 
293. 

Rekam.  See  Reqam. 

Rekem,  as  a name  of  «Petra,  171  f. 

Reqam : a rabbinical  name  of  Kadesh- 
barnea,  167  ff. ; suggested  origin  of 
the  name,  167  ff. ; a second,  probably 
identified  with  the  Petra  of  Josephus 
and  Eusebius,  168  ff. ; the  name  ap- 
plicable to  both  Kadesh-barnea  and 
Petra,  169  ff. ; two-fold  use  of  the 
name,  168,  171,  173 ; Arabic  deriva- 
tion of  the  name,  170/. 

de-Geeah,  or  Giah,  or  degaia, 

167  /.,  171 ; a natural  designation  of 
Kadesh,  173. 

of  the  Plain.  See  Reqam  de- 

Geeah. 

of  the  Mountains,  170/.,  173. 

Research  concerning  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea:  beginnings  of  fuller,  191  ff.; 
need  of  still  further,  320/. 

Retem:  Arabic  equivalent  of  rothem, 
“ a broom,”  150/.;  place  of,  154. 

Retemat,  continuance  of  word  Rithmah 
in  the  name,  154/.,  319. 

Rethem.  See  Retem. 

Rhinocoroura.  See  ’Areesli,  El. 

Rikh&m,  or  rukh&m,  meaning  of  the 
word,  170;  its  relation  to  reqam, 
170/ 

Rithmah ; in  the  list  of  stations,  150, 153/  ; 
the  original  name  of  Kadesh,  150, 
153/.,  316  ff. ; meaning  of  the  word, 
150  /.;  survival  of  the  name  in 
’Aboo  Retemat,  154,  319. 

Road : the  Hebrew  word  for,  73/*.,  338. 

across  the  ’Azazimeh  mountain 

tract,  39. 

the  Amorite  Hill-Country,  16,  65, 

75/.,  315/.;  identification  of,  80  ff.; 
most  natural  one  for  the  Israelites;  82. 

the  ’Arabah,  75,  146,  305,  309, 

318. 

of  the  Atliareem.  See  Road  of 

the  Spies. 


Road : Edom  Royal,  75. 

Hajj.  See  Road,  Red  Sea. 

Muunt  Seir,  42,  75,  306 ; its  iden- 
tification, 74/.;  easternmost  of  the 
roads  from  Sinai,  Canaan  ward,  76, 
79. 

Philistia,  75,  310,  351/,  396,  398  ; 

its  course,  338  / ; its  passage  of  the 
Wall,  339;  probable  traces  of  a Mig- 
dol  at,  375  /. 

Red  Sea,  75,  81,  134,  305,309,  318, 

352  ; route  taken  by  Kedor-la’omer, 
360;  route  taken  by  the  Israelites, 
360/  ; its  modern  prominence,  361 ; a 
Migdol  at,  376/ 

of  the  Spies,  75, 278, 361  ; journey- 
ing along  the,  287. 

Shur,  74  /.,  81 ; fountain  at  the, 

44 ; its  course,  340  ff.  ; its  passage  of 
the  Wall,  341 ; theories  concerning 
its  course,  346  ff.;  modern  traces  of 
the,  349  ff.,  361 ; return  of  Setee  I. 
by  the,  351 ; a Migdol  at  the*,  374/ 

Moab  Wilderness,  75. 

Wall.  See  Road,  Shur. 

Zahi.  See  Road,  Philistia. 

Roads : natural,  74/ 

in  the  Bible  records,  75 ; from 

Egypt  eastward,  indications  of  three, 
337,  361  ff. 

Rock : rikh&m  the  Arabic  term  for  a,  170, 
172  /;  Hebrew  words  meaning  a, 
124/.,  176. 

of  Kadesh  : struck  by  Moses,  23, 

317 ; name  Rikham  applied  to  171 
/. ; application  of  name  Reqam 
to,  176 ; Jewish  traditions  concern- 
ing, 176  ff. ; called  the  Fountain  of 
Miriam,  177  /.;  seen  and  describ- 
ed, 214  ff.,  273  /.,  310.  See,  also, 
Sel’a. 

City.  See  Petra. 

Roman  Wall,  remains  of  a,  50/ 

Rothem:  meaning  of  the  word,  150;  its 
relation  to  Rithmah,  150. 

Route:  from  Castle  Nakhl  to  Hebron, 
229 ; its  dangers,  251. 

of  the  Israelites  : a discussion  of 

the,  74  ff. ; modern  theories  of  the, 
76  ff.  ; untenable  theories  of  the,  78, 
86  f.,  361,  402/.;  ’Ayn  ei-Waybeh 
not  on  the,  306/ ; ’Ayn  Qa dees  on 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


475 


the,  312 ; no  cities  on  the,  379  ff. ; a 
study  of  the,  325  ff. 

Routes  into  Canaan,  the  choice  of,  38. 

Ruqeem  : meaning  of  the  word,  170  ff. ; 
in  the  Qur&n  and  the  Arabic  Bible, 
170  /. ; mentioned  by  Abulfeda, 
173/. 

Sakti,  frontier  wall  against  the,  47. 

Balt,  Owdy’s  use  of,  293  ff. 

Samhoot.  See  Samhud  and  Tell  es- 
Samoot. 

Samhud,  an  Egyptian  name,  364/. ; its 
alleged  correspondence  with  Migdol, 
364,  366  /. ; its  location,  365  ; a name 
applied  to  many  different  places,  365. 

S&n,  city  of,  380. 

Saneha,  story  of,  47,  89,  326,  333. 

Saqqarah,  step-pyramid  of,  264. 

Satan,  possible  origin  of  the  name,  421  /. 

Sayl,  a rainfall,  294,  297. 

Scorpions,  Ascent  of.  See  ’Akrabbim, 
Ascent  of. 

Scribes’  pursuit  of  the  slaves,  story  of 
the  Egyptian,  47/.,  363,  372/.,  395. 

Sea,  Egyptian : tongue  of,  348  / ; not  the 
Gulf  of  Suez,  348  / ; identified  as 
the  Nile,  348/ 

Sea-weed,  sooph  a name  of,  354. 

Seer,  Es  : identified  with  the  Seir  of  the 
Exodus,  93  ff. ; its  location,  94  /. 

Seil.  See  Sayl. 

Seir:  meaning  of  the  word,  89,  94;  con- 
tinuance of  the  name  in  Es-Seer,  95. 

a name  of  Esau,  84/.,  89/ ; de- 
scent of  the  Horites  from,  88  /. 

land  of,  its  boundaries,  28 ; its  re- 
lation to  Edom,  84/^.;  distinguished 
from  Mount  Seir,  85,  99  ; inhabited 
by  Esau,  91;  “the  mountain  that 
goeth  up  to,”  described,  95  ff.,  110. 

Mount : in  the  song  of  Moses,  22 ; 

in  Kedor-la’omer’s  campaign,  35/.; 
the  Israelites  forbidden  to  approach, 
79  /.  ; located  in  Edom,  85 ; the 
earliest  mention  of,  88 ; Esau’s  re- 
moval to,  92. 

“Sekhet ,”  394. 

Sel’a:  “The  Rock,”  124  ff. ; a name  of 
Kadesh-barnea,  124  /.;  contrasted 
with  tsoor,  124  /.,  176;  described, 
214  ff.,  273 ; what  the  word  indicates, 


319;  no  traces  of,  at  ’Ayn  el-Way- 
beh,  210 ; found  at  ’Ayn  Qadees,  214, 
273.  See,  also,  Rock  of  Kadesh. 

Semitic  languages,  change  of  consonants 
in,  113,  135,  173  /.,  290,  336. 

Septuagint : reference  to  Shur  in  the 
55  / ; name  Yam  Sooph  in  the,  352. 

Serbal,  Mount,  277 . 

Serbonis,  Lake,  48,  357  ff.,  403. 

Set : associated  with  Ba’al,  408 ; his  place 
in  Egyptian  mythology,  408-421 ; 
representative  of  darkness  and  con- 
flict, 410  /.;  god  of  the  north,  412  /. 

Set-Nubti,  413. 

Seyal  tree  in  Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayr&t, 
282. 

Shaloof,  heights  of,  342  /. 

Shari,  an  old  Egyptian  word,  355;  Sooph 
the  Hebrew  representative  of,  355. 

Shasoo : an  ancient  name  of  the  Bed' ween, 
331 ; invasions  of  the,  329,  393 ; ter- 
ritory of  the,  331,  372. 

Shaykh  : an  escorting,  powerless  beyond 
his  tribal  lines,  244 ; el-Belad,  head 
shaykh  of  a tribe,  238. 

Shaykh:  Abimelech,  255. 

Hussan,  imprisonment  of,  248  ff. 

Husayn  ibn-Egid,  248. 

Moosa,  described,  247. 

Musleh,  described,  244  /. ; treach- 
ery of,  244  ff.,  250. 

Selim,  212. 

Sulayman  Ibn  ’Amir:  described, 

246 ; Bartlett  misled  by,  232. 

Shetem,  336. 

Shephelah,  the  Lowland,  62,  126. 

Shora,  its  growth  by  the  Red  Sea,  355. 

Shur : Kadesh  over  against,  44 ; before 
Egypt,  44,  55 ; meaning  of  the  word, 
45,  55 ; its  proposed  location  at  Jebel 
er-Rahah,  45/;  wrongly  understood 
to  mean  a town,  46 ; indicates  the 
Wall  of  Egypt,  46,  325;  a Hebrew 
translation  of  the  Egyptian  Anboo, 
48 ; known  to  Josephus  as  the  Wall, 
55;  talmudical  translations  of  the 
word,  57  / ; important  results  of 
identifying  it  as  the  Wall,  58 ; Etham 
as  a substitute  for,  327 . 

Wilderness  of,  57,  327. 

Shushan,  31. 

Siddim,  Vale  of,  38 ; its  location,  40. 


476 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Signals  for  marching,  Oriental,  397. 

Sin,  or  Shin,  Mount,  278. 

Sinai,  Mount : over  against  Kadesh-bar- 
nea,  16;  Israelites’  march  to  Kadesh- 
barnea,  from,  16;  time  of  the  jour- 
ney, 18/. ; in  the  song  of  Moses,  22 ; 
roads  to  Gaza,  from,  42,  79;  distance 
of  Kadesh-barnea  from,  71,  73  /.; 
roads  north  from,  76 ; Survey  Expe- 
dition, 77 ; proposed  location  of  Ka- 
desh-barnea near,  203/.,  303. 

Wilderness  of,  68. 

Sineh.  See  Saneha. 

Site  of  Kadesh-barnea,  refinding  the 
272  ff. 

Sites  of  Kadesh-barnea  : confusion  con- 
cerning the.  proposed,  216  ff. ; two 
representative,  304  ff. 

Smooth  Mountain,  the,  94, 211 ; described, 
96.  See,  also,  Halak,  Mount. 

South  Country.  See  Negeb. 

Sooph:  meaning  of  the  word,  352  ff.; 
applied  to  marine  growths,  353  ff., 
356/  See,  also,  Yam  Sooph. 

Spies : sent  from  Kadesh-barnea,  17,  316; 
the  word  Athareem  wrongly  trans. 
lated,  316 ; Way  of  the.  See  Road. 

Starting  point,  Castle  Nakhl  a mid-des- 
ert, 243#. 

Stations  of  the  Israelites : Bible  mention 
only  of  the  more  important,  20, 14 5/  ; 
more  than  one  day  apart,  139  ff., 
146  /. ; Kadesh  in  the  list  of,  147  ff. ; 
Rithmah  in  the  list  of,  150/.,  153. 

Stone  heaps  and  stone  enclosures.  See 
Cairns. 

Succoth : not  a city,  379 ; rendezvous  of 
the  Israelites  at,  384  /.,  392  ff. ; 
meaning  of  the  word,  392,  394 ; pro- 
posed identifications  of,  392  ff. 

Suez : Canal  34. 

Gulf  of : no  ancient  connection 

between  the  Bitter  Lakes  and,  342/  ; 
its  alleged  shortening,  348 ; not  the 
Egyptian  Sea,  348  /. 

Tsthmus  of : diagram  of  a section 

through  the,  341 ; its  ancient  config- 
uration, 342  ff. ; its  ancient  width, 
344  ff.,  348 ; its  summit  level,  362/ 

Sufah,  Pass  es:  synonym  of  Halak,  96; 
described,  96  /. ; proposed  identifica- 
tion t>f  the  Ascent  of  ’Akrabbim  at, 


111 ; suggested  identity  of  the  Hebrew 
name  Zephath  with,  211,  305,  308. 

Sufey,  Es.  See  Suf&h,  Pass  es. 

Sufi,  353. 

Sura,  an  equivalent  of  Shur,  49. 

Susiana.  See  Elam. 

Sutekh.  See  Set. 

Tabernacle  : circuits  of  the,  20 ; wag- 
ons for  the  service  of  the,  78;  its 
removal  to  Kadesh-barnea,  316. 

Taberah,  142. 

Tabor.  See  Dapur. 

Mount : described,  163 ; fortress  of 

Kana’an  on,  163,  332. 

Talmud  : Shur  in  the,  57 ; Edom  in  the, 
101 ; names  for  Kadesh  in  the,  167 ; 
a double  Reqam  in  the,  189. 

Tamar.  See  Thamar. 

Tanis,  citadel  of,  332 ; city  of,  380  /. 

Tapura.  See  Dapur. 

Tar,  an  Egyptian  word  for  fortress,  58. 

Targums  : Shur  in  the,  57 ; names  for 
Kadesh  in  the,  167;  Azmon  in  the, 
289 ; passage  of  the  Red  Sea  in  the, 
426. 

Ta-Ten£t,  “the  cutting,”  a name  of  the 
Great  Canal,  333. 

Tawarah.  See  Bed'ween,  Tawarah. 

Teeh,  Et : meaning  and  use  of  the  name, 
67  /.;  antiquity  of  the  name,  68. 

Desert  et : its  location,  67  /. ; its 

extent,  68 ; route  of  the  Israelites  in 
ascending  to,  78;  the  “great  and 
terrible  wilderness  ” of  the  Israelites, 
208/.,  306. 

Teeyahah.  See  Bed'ween,  Teeyahah. 

Tell  : meaning  of  the  word,  364. 

el-Milh,  228. 

es-Samoot : proposed  identifi  cation 

of  Migdol  at,  364#.,  370/.,  373;  ob- 
jections to  it  as  a site  of  Migdol,  376. 

el-Heer  : probable  location  of  an 

ancient  Migdol  at,  375/.;  said  to 
be  the  Hau’ar  of  the  Egyptian  texts, 
375/ 

el-Maskhootah,  395. 

Teman : meaning  of  the  word,  118 ; desig- 
nates a portion  of  Edom,  118  ; a trace 
of  the  word  in  the  name  Pass  el. 
Yemen,  118/ ; a point  in  Canaan’s 
southern  boundary,  117  /. 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


477 


Terabeen.  See  Bed'ween,  Terabeen. 

Thamar,  a landmark  in  Canaan’s  south- 
ern boundary,  119  ; attempts  to 

identity,  120  ff. 

Thebes,  gates  of,  326. 

Themail,  “ cistern-dregs,”  232. 

Thufi,  353.  See,  also,  Sooph. 

Thukoo  : meaning  of  the  word,  394 ; its 
proposed  correspondence  with  Suc- 
coth,  394. 

Tims&h,  Lake,  333,  341,  347,  395. 

Thuku.  See  Thukoo. 

Toor,  its  suggested  connection  with  Shur, 
58 ; meaning  of  the  word,  238. 

Tower : the  word  migdol  means  a,  367, 
369,  377,  379 ; bekhen,  or  bekhon, 
means  a,  368;  Arabic  words  meaning 
a,  377  ; of  the  watchman,  368,  377. 
See,  also,  Migdol. 

of  the  Well.  See  Well  of  the 

Tower. 

Towers  for  the  defense  of  the  Great  Wall, 
326. 

Track,  off  from  the  main,  263/. 

“ Tracks,”  correct  translation  of  word 
Athareem,  316. 

Traditions  of  the  Jews  concerning  the 
Rock  of  Kadesh,  176  ff. 

Training-place,  a typical,  58  ff. 

Treasure-cities  of  Egypt,  339,  379  ff. 

Truth,  Arab  contempt  for  the,  293/. 

Tsaphon,  or  Tsephon,  meaning  of  the 
word,  419/. 

Tsoor,  distinction  in  meaning  between 
Sel’a  and,  124/.,  176. 

Tur.  See  Toor. 

Turf  er-Rukn,  206. 

“ Turn,”  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word 
translated,  37,  399. 

— a sharp,  396. 

Typhon,  408#. 

Typical  lands,  three  great,  59. 

Umm  el-JerrAr,  63. 

“ Upon,”  the  Hebrew  word  translated,  37. 

Valley  of  Gerar.  See  Wady  Gerar. 

Vendetta,  effect  of  the,  267. 

Village,  an  ancient,  280  ff. 

“ Wadi  el-Kdeis,”  discovered  by  Seet- 
zen,  205. 

“ Wadi  er-Rakib.”  See  Yemen,  Pass  el. 


Wady  : meaning  of  the  term,  19. 

Abyad.  See  Wady  Gayn. 

Aboo  Retemat,  42,  154  /. 

el-’Arabah,  38. 

el-’ Areesh  : the  River  or  Torrent  of 

Egypt,  115#.,  166/.,  254,  290/.;  the 
western  point  of  Canaan’s  southern 
boundary,  116  /.,  120,  123  /„  312. 

el-’Ateeyeh,  78. 

el-’Ayn,  78,  313. 

’Ayn  el-Qadayrat,  78,  204,  222, 

232,  285;  visited,  278/. 

Beerayn,  222,  294/. 

Fayran,  69,  247,  273,  278,  378. 

Feiran.  See  Wady  Fayr&n. 

Feqreh,  110, 133, 312;  its  location, 

94  /. ; correspondence  of  its  slope 
with  the  side  of  Mount  Halak,  95, 
97 ; proposed  location  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  at,  228,  304. 

“Gaian.”  See  Wady  Gayan. 

Gayan,  or  Abyad,  proposed  loca- 
tion of  Kadesh-barnea  at,  222,  303. 

“ el-Ghudyan,”  146. 

el-Ghuwayr  : meaning  of  the 

name,  134 ; proposed  location  of  Ka- 
desh-barnea at,  227,  303. 

Hafeer.  See  Wady  Hanayn. 

Hanayn  : visited,  294 ; Arab  su- 
perstition concerning,  294. 

Hanjoorat,  133. 

el-Jayb,  209. 

Jerafeh,  209,  303. 

— — Jeroor,  63/.,  254/.,  263. 

Madurah,  133,  317. 

Mayeen,  254. 

el-Mukatteb,  77 ; inscriptions  at, 

277. 

Murrah,  95,  133,  317. 

Murreh.  See  Wady  Murrah. 

of  the  Writings.  See  Wady  el- 

Mukatteb. 

Qadees,  289  ; visited,  264/. ; des- 
cribed, 269#.;  an  encircled  moun- 
tain fastness,  319. 

Qarayyeh,  254. 

Qasaymeh  : visited,  287  ff.  ; des- 
cribed, 290  /. ; valley,  connecting 
Wady  ’Ayn  el-Qadayrat  and,  290. 

Rahhabeh,  or  Rayhobeh,  292. 

Ruhaybeh,  293. 


478 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Wady  Sabh,  or  Sabhah,  287,  293. 

Sa’eedeh,  264. 

Sa’eedat,  94. 

Samrah,  264. 

Sasab,  264. 

es-Seram,  42,  293;  camping  in, 

287. 

esh-Sherayf,  254/. 

Toomilat,  Land  of  Goshen  in- 
cluded, 382  /. 

Umm  ’A'sheen,  277. 

Wajat,  264. 

Werdan,  356. 

Zelleger.  See  Wady  ez-Zulaqah. 

ez-Zulaqah,  77. 

Wall  of  Egypt : its  earliest  mention,  46  ff.  ; 
Shur  indicates  the,  46,  325  /. ; passed 
by  Saneha,  47 ; its  existence  estab- 
lished, 49, 54 ; opinions  concerning  its 
extent,  49  ff. ; period  of  its  building, 
49,  52 ; Egyptian  legends  regarding 
50 ; its  probable  location,  51 ; its 
builder  not  identified,  52  ff. ; its 
northern  terminus,  52,  54;  known 
by  various  names,  54;  a reference  to 
it  in  the  name  of  Egypt,  56  /.  ; gave 
its  name  to  surrounding  regions,  57  ; 
as  a barrier  to  the  passage  of  the 
Israelites,  325 ; its  strength  and  its 
defenders,  32 8ff. ; Etham,  a name  for 
328  ff. ; Egyptian  name  for,  337 ; 
Hebrew  name  for,  337  ; where  the 
roads  passed  it,  339,  341 ; its  passage 
by  Setee  I.,  351 ; Israelites’  last  camp 
within  the,  396,  405  ff. ; flanked  by 
the  Israelites,  425  ff. 

Wilderness  of  the,  44  ff.f  337. 

Walled  Land,  the  name  of  Egypt,  56/. 

Walls  of  stone,  in  Wady  Qadees,  271. 

Wanderings,  the : not  a formal  marching, 
20  ; silence  of  the  Bible  concerning, 
20  ff.  ; a period  of  dispersion,  21  / 

Wilderness  of  the,  origin  of  the 

name,  68. 

“ Watch-tower,”  Hebrew  words  translat- 
ed, 377. 

Water,  supply  of,  failing,  271. 


Way  : the  Hebrew  word  translated,  73, 
338 ; sense  of  the  word  in  English, 
74. 

of  the  ’Arabah,  of  the  Mountain 

of  the  Amorite,  etc.  See  Road. 

Weeds,  Sea  of.  See  Sea  of  Weeds. 

Well  of  the  Tower,  on  the  Shur  Road, 
351,  363 ; its  probable  identification 
at  Beer-Makhdal,  351,  370. 

Well  of  Migdol.  See  Well  of  the  Tower. 

Wells:  Arab  appreciation  of  their  value, 
298/.;  in  ’Ayn  Qadees,  273. 

Wilderness,  “ the  great  and  terrible.” 
See  Paran,  Wilderness  of,  and  Teeh, 
Desert  et. 

Yam,  meaning  of  the  word,  348,  352. 

Yam  Sooph  : the  Gulf  of  Suez,  348 ; 
not  the  Egyptian  Sea,  348;  He- 
brew name  for  the  Red  Sea,  352 
ff,  358, 402 ; first  mention  of  the,  357 ; 
later  mention  of  the,  358 ; Wilder- 
ness of  the,  its  location  and  extent, 
358  /. ; employed  as  the  name  of  the 
Gulf  of  ’Aqabah,  or  eastern  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea,  358  /. ; alleged  origin 
of  the  name  from  a Bible  gloss,  3 59/ 

Yemen,  Pass  el : a trace  of  word  Teman 
in,  118  /. ; described,  112  ff.;  sug- 
gested identification  of  the  ascent  of 
’Akrabbim  at,  111  ff. 

Yom-en-Shari,  356. 

Zahi,  land  of,  332. 

Zemzemieh,  small  water-bottles,  271. 

Zephath,  63;  suggested  identity  of  the 
Arabic  name  Es-Sufah  with,  211, 
305,  308  ; Sebatah  identified  as  the 
site  of,  213. 

Zin,  Wilderness  of,  28,  68,  385;  Kadesh 
in  the  67 ; not  the  ’Arabah,  69  /. ; its 
location,  69  /. ; its  proposed  identifi- 
cation with  the  ’Arabah,  305. 

Ziph,  Wilderness  of,  68. 

Zoan,  its  proposed  identification  with 
Rameses,  380. 

Zor,  Khetam  and  Khetamoo  of.  See 
Khetam  of  Zor. 


r- 


■ 


“ 


“Ylt-'-' 


THE  NEGEB 


NOTE, 


AND  ITS  SURROUNDINGS. 


TO  ACCOMPANY 

TRUMBULL’S  “ EaDKSH-BARNEA. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


0112  112499923 


